Sunday, April 27, 2008

“But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, and he said to him, “Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?” And the man was speechless.

“Then the king said to the servants, “Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

“For many are called, but few are chosen.”

— Matthew 22:11-14 (New American Standard Bible)

Well, the other shoe has finally dropped.

Do you notice anything different about this post? For example, how quickly the page loads in your browser?

That’s because there are no more advertisements. As of today, April 27, 2008, Gates of Vienna is no longer a member blog at Pajamas Media.

I received a phone call this afternoon from Roger Simon, the CEO of PJM, announcing that our relationship was terminated, and that we should remove anything connected with PJM from our blog’s template. The specific reason given was our publication of Surrender, Genocide… or What?, the guest-essay by El Inglés that has caused so much argument for the last few days. Roger informed me with regret that the PJM Board had decided to cancel our contract.

Every since the recent unpleasantness started last October, I’ve been expecting it. And now the footwear has hit the floor at last.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Our association with Pajamas Media started almost exactly three years ago. When the venture was announced, we were in the very first group of “little blogs” that signed up. Not long afterwards we were listed on their blogroll and started running PJM ads.

It was a very exciting moment. Pajamas Media’s avowed intention was to leverage the unfettered free speech of the blogosphere into something larger, a business model that would draw on the traffic of blog visitors to pull in ad revenue, and simultaneously help increase that traffic by networking us all together and publicizing our efforts.

The idea was an excellent one: scoop up the tired, the poor, and the hungry bloggers yearning to be free, give them a place to hang out, and encourage a combination of first-hand reporting and cutting-edge opinion.

No holds would be barred, because PJM was to be different from the MSM, a place where voices could be heard that would otherwise remain silent.

Unfortunately, idealism doesn’t always make for a good business model. When the principle of open debate conflicts with hard-nosed commonsense business interests, it’s no contest. PJM has moved up into the big time now, and, like the mainstream media, it has to run its operation like a business.

I respect and support that. We’re not good for business, so they’ll get no argument from me: of course we had to go.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dick: “We have the freedom of speech in America.”

Tom: “And you’d better say what you’re supposed to say!”

— the Smothers Brothers (not sure which album)

In a skype discussion prior to my writing this post, one of my good friends mentioned that PJM had “censored” us.

But I object to this formulation. Only a government body can censor us. This was a contractual arrangement between Dymphna and me on the one hand, and a corporation on the other. A clause in our contract specifically allowed PJM to do what it did. We freely entered into the contract, and this event has nothing to do with censorship.

Business is business.- - - - - - - - -But now we come to a dilemma. For a long time many readers have complained that our blog is slow to load, and the embedded advertisements were the major cause of the problem. Now the problem has been solved, but it creates a new one: how to make up for the lost ad revenue?

Our traffic is large enough that we have standing offers from several other advertisers for our banner and skyscraper ad slots. But we’d rather be ad-free, because the blog is more visually appealing, and we enjoy the rapid page load as much as you do.

So here’s what I propose: based on our traffic figures, and making a guess as to how many of those people are serious return visitors who like our blog, I estimate that $20 from every regular reader would make up the shortfall we’re facing for the rest of the year. Come January, we can review the situation again and see how it looks.

You can use the tip cup on our left sidebar; and when the PayPal form comes up, you’ll see “Natural Intelligence of Central Virginia” — that’s our business name.

For those countries which make up the largest portion of our readership: as of today, US $20 = UK £10.08 = €12.81 = CA $20.27 = 95.59 Danish kroner. For other currencies, see the XE universal currency converter.

You might call this the “Keep Gates of Vienna Ad-Free” campaign.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

So why have we been cast into the Outer Darkness?

As most of you know, El Inglés took a hard-eyed look at the situation in Europe, and his careful analysis concluded that if present trends continue, a breakdown of civil authority is likely to occur, resulting in what he called a discontinuity.

In mathematical terms, a discontinuity is a point on a curve at which all the derivatives (differentials taken to the nth level) cannot be defined. The curve is termed “discontinuous” at that point, and any further behavior in that direction is unpredictable, since the differential equations that describe the curve cannot be solved. An asymptote to a hyperbolic curve is one of the simplest examples of a discontinuity.

“Curve” is used loosely here, and a function in more than two dimensions can exhibit the same characteristics. When a three- or four-dimensional surface is involved, the discontinuity is often called a “singularity”, especially by physicists. A black hole is an actual physical expression of a spatial singularity.

El Inglés’ analysis led to the conclusion that much of Europe is inevitably facing a socio-political singularity due to the soft totalitarian superstate known as the EU, the dangerous ideology of Multiculturalism, and the presence of large numbers of unassimilated Muslim immigrants.

On the other side of that singularity, events are inherently unpredictable — none of us knows what the outcome will be, only that the singularity is on its way.

In order to prepare for a worst-case scenario, El Inglés looked at the distinct possibility that there will be a breakdown of central political authority in one or more European countries within the next five to twenty years. When that occurs, various scenarios can be imagined:

Violent gangs morph into armed militias, as elements of the police and armed forces “flip” to the side of rebellious mobs, while the official and ineffectual government attempts to suppress them;

Revolution arrives, followed by the installation of one or another kind of violent militaristic tyranny;

Confrontations arise between the existing violent Muslim gangs and newly-aroused mobs of aboriginal Europeans; and

Combinations of and variations on the above scenarios.

So many variables are involved that the final outcome cannot possibly be known. Governments may respond with violent repression while they still have obedient police forces. Intervention by the United States, Russia, or other external powers may occur. A recently-acquired nuclear weapon or dirty bomb may be used against a European city. A brutal and charismatic leader may arise and organize his countrymen on the basis of left-wing, right-wing, or nationalist ideology.

Any or all of the above has the potential to lead to a genocidal situation, either at the hands of loosely organized paramilitaries, or a newly-installed totalitarian dictator, or an intervening outside power, or combinations of these.

What seems more likely to me is the Lebanization of Europe, a gradual slide into a Balkanized patchwork of warring factions existing in a state of chronic low-level warfare, with all its attendant horrors: assassinations, massacres, rapes, atrocities, destruction of property, and so on.

This scenario would avoid an outright apocalypse, but lead to a diminished and impoverished Europe, a continent that no longer acts a beacon of civilization and is a mere shell of its former self.

All of the above speculation is called “war-gaming”, and anyone who reads it as an advocacy of genocide or dictatorship is illiterate, skimming the text too fast, or is disingenuously misreading it in order to pursue an agenda.

We (and by “we”, I mean not just bloggers or writers, but also our duly constituted civil and military authorities) would be failing in our duty if we did not look ahead to try to foresee all possibilities. We need to war-game what might lie ahead in the best case, worst case, and all other scenarios in between.

The failure to institute universal arms limitation which led to the ultimate breakdown of the First World Disarmament Conference 1932-1933, together with the rise of Hitler, was to make the rearmament of Germany a certainty. And tragically it was not only Hitler and his Nazi supporters who wanted Germany’s rearmament, but many influential figures in Britain and elsewhere, as we shall shortly see. One prominent exception, however, was Winston Churchill who, from the early 1930s never ceased to warn his Conservative colleagues and others of the danger, the inevitable consequence of war if Germany, especially under Hitler, was allowed to rearm. He likewise warned of the dangers of encouraging Hitler by acceding to his demands on other nations.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Returning to the present, we’re not the only ones war-gaming the current situation in a less-than-sanguine fashion. Daniel Pipes has recently written in similar terms, referring to an op-ed by Ralph Peters:

American author Ralph Peters sketches a scenario in which “U.S. Navy ships are at anchor and U.S. Marines have gone ashore at Brest, Bremerhaven or Bari to guarantee the safe evacuation of Europe’s Muslims.” Peters concludes that because of European’s “ineradicable viciousness,” its Muslims “are living on borrowed time” As Europeans have “perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing,” Muslims, he predicts, “will be lucky just to be deported,” rather than killed. Indeed, Muslims worry about just such a fate; since the 1980s, they have spoken overtly about Muslims being sent to gas chambers.

Violence by indigenous Europeans cannot be precluded but nationalist efforts will more likely take place less violently; if any one is likely to initiate violence, it is the Muslims. They have already engaged in many acts of violence and seem to be spoiling for more. Surveys indicate, for instance, that about 5 percent of British Muslims endorse the 7/7 transport bombings. In brief, a European reassertion will likely lead to on-going civil strife, perhaps a more lethal version of the fall 2005 riots in France.

[…]

One can virtually dismiss from consideration the prospect of Muslims accepting historic Europe and integrating within it. U.S. columnist Dennis Prager agrees: “It is difficult to imagine any other future scenario for Western Europe than its becoming Islamicized or having a civil war.”

But which of those two remaining paths will the continent take? Forecasting is difficult because crisis has not yet struck. But it may not be far off. Within a decade perhaps, the continent’s evolution will become clear as the Europe-Muslim relationship takes shape. [emphasis added]

So why do Daniel Pipes, a respected anti-jihad scholar and expert on Islam, and Ralph Peters, a well-known opinion journalist, get to use the g-word without being branded “Nazi sympathizers” or “crypto-fascists”?

They’re using the word in the same way that we are, as a speculation about possible scenarios that lie ahead if Europe does not institute a drastic change of policy. All three of us are being descriptive and not normative about the topic.

It could be that we’re all “alarmists”, but being an alarmist is part of the job description for any war-gamer who wants to be effective.

A more stringent standard has been applied to us for several reasons:

1.

We’re mere uncredentialed bloggers, lacking the requisite letters after our names that guarantee polite respect from journalists and academics. We are thus automatically regarded as potentially dangerous ideologues from the loose-cannon lunatic fringe.

2.

We have been under continuous verbal attack for six months by several blogs and writers who have more power and influence than we can ever hope to achieve.

3.

We have expressed a prominent and public skepticism about the existence of a “moderate” Islam, or at least whether such putative moderation is likely to have any effect on the events that will unfold over the next generation.

4.

We have allowed any and all commenters, provided they abide by our discursive rules, to speak freely under our umbrella, even when they use intolerant, ill-chosen, and provocative language.

So those are the ground rules, and that’s just the way it is. If we say the same things that Daniel Pipes does, a ton of bricks comes down on us.

But we’re used to it. We didn’t pull any punches to try to protect our PJM franchise, and we won’t do so in the future.

We’ll continue to post guest-essays by people we may not always agree with, but whose work is insightful and thoughtful and deserves to be aired.

And we’ll continue to let our readers mouth off in the comments.

I really do believe in free speech, and not the namby-pamby watered-down “let’s not offend anyone” version. I believe in the tough kind, the kind that includes views that I personally consider wrong and misguided.

But out of some combination of all this will come the “line of best fit” that will help save the West.

I’m sure you will continue to do great things without us. With any kind of luck, jettisoning the questionable passengers from your sled will help you attract more investment capital, and allow you to build an effective and innovative model for the New Media.

I estimate that $20 from every regular reader would make up the shortfall we’re facing for the rest of the year. Come January, we can review the situation again and see how it looks. You can use the tip cup on our left sidebar

Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice. - John Adams

The moment you give up your principles, and your values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period. Oriana Fallaci

I just read that Charles of LGF was one of the founders of Pajamas Media... personally, I'm not sure I would want to be a member of PJM because of that, especially considering what he's been doing since October.

PSS: I just saw on the other-blog-from-hell this latest post, which includes these words by Bruce Bawer:

"What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, KhoÂ meini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies’ basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.

Well, If PJM management wants to be invited to the tea parties with all the pretty people, the in-crowd, they have to throw away their scruples. They have to join their good friends at Huffpo and Daily Kos, or at least fight the political fight by their rules, the ones set up to make us fail.

I never wanted to say anything, but I often was puzzled over the PJM affiliation. It just didn't seem a good fit for this excellent blog.I know the intent of the PJM brand was to create a mainstream source from non-mainstream sources, so I was always dubious about it's success, even though I am a big fan of some of it's founders, such as Michael Ledeen.Since PJM has shown fit to be so sensitive and thin-skinned about free expression, I can only think of Will Shakespeare."Thou art a most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise breaker, the owner of no one good quality."

This is a sad occurrence, but not because it wounds G.O.V. in any way ( I don't think it does ) but rather because of what it shows about the "mainstream blogosphere."I feel you are far too generous in your statement - while business IS business, that is also the attitude that leads to selling rope to those who will use it to hang the seller.G.O.V. has been the object of a concerted campaign of intentional misrepresentation on the part of Charles Johnson and his sycophants, and the action by Pajamas Media says more about them than about G.O.V.As for the Ingles article that was the stated cause of this - only intentioanl misreading and misrepresentation can explain the false accusations that have been made about it.It is no secret that Europe IS facing an existential crisis, and that if it is not solved soon by those in positions of legitmate authority, there WILL come a point where others will attempt to remedy the situation in their own way, and that will not be to anyone's benefit.Europe IS sleepwalking toward another Kristallnacht, and continuing to hit the "snooze button" will only make the inevitable reckoning less comfortable for all involved. Pointing this out is NOT the same as advocating genocide, and to portray it as such is intellectual dishonesty of a high order.

While you're deleting blogs, count Shrinkwrapped among them. He's not PJM, but his gravitas as a "professional" pronouncing anathema on El Ingles while endorsing Chazzer's pov was the catalyst for this particular blood -leting. A useful idiot. Just like Chazzer is for the socialists groups in Europe who use him.

I figure CJ is going to wait till Monday to carry the story. I'm sure the comment section is nattering away by now.

I like the Baron's attitude - he is not in despair and wish them good luck (unlike many of his readers). That's good. If you are in despair (as many conservatives are) then you must have believed a wrong thing.

I don't blame those light-weight popular bloggers who carefully try to avoid hard questions. They don't do any harm, and don't do much good. But those who raise unpleasant questions are always disliked. Nevertheless, who do we remember now, the Socrates or those who gave him poison?

It wasn't advocating anything. It was simply pointing out the obvious and (heretofore) unavoidable. Europe has historically ALWAYS done this sort of thing. They stick their head in the sand until the last minute and then - when the shit does hit the fan - everything goes apeshit.

Unfortunately what you're dealing with is an American segment of the population who still believes they can have their cake and eat it too. They believe they can raise hell against islam on this side of the pond without having to actually deal with anything more menacing than a 4 foot tall weed smoking mexican immigrant.

In other words... they talk big. But when it comes to walking... eh... not so much.

I pray daily for you on the European continent because - whether anyone likes it or not - you're on the front lines.

Good luck and God bless. Here's to hoping our leadership will have the balls and brains it takes to send some doughboys your way when things get ugly.

I think the Baron knows that speech by heart. It makes me too sad to hear/read it. Shakespeare's England is beyond recall.

May it come again. There are still stout-hearted Englishmen who haven't been beaten down.I saw a great video of a guy in his yard, cutting bushes and he noticed to police officers giving a kid on a bike some trouble.

So he started filming them with his phone, supplying a narrative. They noticed him and came into the yard, attempting to take his phone. He was having none of it and quoted the law to them...it was wonderful.

Business is business. But I find it sad that the only example yet of complete utilization of the intellectual horsepower of a collective blogswarm concerned Rather's memogate.When it comes to more dangerously controversial topics, Talk Radio is much more willing to take on the issue than the right wing blogosphere as a whole, yet radio is a business also.Fear of censure by other bloggers seem to limit completely open expression somewhat.Illegal immigration is another perfect example that comes to mind: Talk radio is more than willing to tackle it, the blogs, not so much.Best example being Kevin James on KRLA.com from 9 - 11PM Pacific, weekdays. (see how free and lightweight advertising can be!)---Investigate a little more before settling on a new revenue model.Best of Luck!

Mein zwanzig gruenbacks have been geschickenand Charles Johnson can go to die hoelle barfuss and row dem boot mit his suitcasesForza Gates of Vienna and thank you for the hours and hours of Central Virginia Intelligence.

In a scrupulously politically correct age, it's not offensive to organize a "Kill the police!" demo or to preach that the government invented Aids in order to perpetrate an African-American genocide. You can pull that stuff and still be part of respectable society, hanging out with presidential candidates and whatnot. What's grotesquely offensive is the chap who's insensitive enough to point out such statements and associations.

There's a scene in Saving Private Ryan where an SS man stabs a Jewish-American soldier in a hand to hand fight. As the knife goes in, the SS whispers to the man he is killing to hush. Don't make any trouble. Die like a good Jew. Mark Steyn understands that the real offense today isn't the destruction of Western liberties and standards. It's resistance that's unacceptable. The real offense is making trouble.

2. Well Roger must protect his business investment, his cash-out strategy for Hollywood etc. Charles as well I suspect.

3. I suspect as well that you are right. No genocide but rather a degeneration into a series of violent, warring zones. Which I might remind everyone was Europe's natural state from say, the late 300's until say, 1814.

I do have a couple of problems with El Ingles's assumptions, particularly the question of resources.

In a nutshell, genocide apart from the considerable discomfort most people have with killing, particularly those not used to it, requires serious resources. Rwandans and Third Reich killers did little else. Including fighting the enemy. The resources required for Genocide, killing people on a massive scale, are simply too great unless extraordinary things happen. Including habituating people to kill. Which is a (fortunately) in Western Societies a very difficult thing indeed.

My other point is "how did we get here?"

A lot of blame has been laid on Gramscian schemes, bad intellectuals, and so on. I don't dispute the bad affects of them all. Or the noxious construction of the Welfare State.

HOWEVER ...

IMHO people are ignoring the other big social change post WWII. What Dalrymple describes but won't put an absolute name to.

Women won the right to vote following WWI in most Western Nations. After WWII, with sex imbalances caused by casualties, they tended to dominate politics and life. Even the Soviet Union after Stalin became sclerotic, conservative, risk-averse. Not what it was.

We live in deeply feminized societies, where the mores, choices, and policy preferences are on balance driven by women. Including a preference for various emotional pandering, politics by Oprah, "feeling" and so on. With risk-aversion to the extreme. Faludi outright admits that she'd rather lose to terrorists than see feminists and women sidelined in an armed struggle to preserve freedom in the West.

Is it any accident that feminists are in the forefront of appeasement and justification of Islamism and Jihad and Sharia in the West itself?

No.

We got here because female-dominated politics demanded it. Along with other desired outcomes, single motherhood, dislike of math/science/nerd-dom, multiculturalism, and desire for status among all (check out Home and Garden Television).

Genocide is a young man's game, I just do not see that in the feminized West. I do see various Cromwells and Napoleons, with perhaps some nations doing better than others.

The Danes seem willing to fight for their freedom. Perhaps the French might do so as well. The English IMHO are truly lost. The Italians and Spaniards very bad off -- no children. Eastern Europe is also in bad shape demographically, but still believe in Europe.

I am not too impressed with the EU -- how many divisions, police forces, and men willing to die and kill does it have again? IMHO we are looking at the break down of law and order, people simply ignoring the law. As in Italy.

Most people sit a the end of cage, their faces are tied with string, and they are unable to move their heads - they sit and stare at the end of the cage. Behind them are a little wall of earth, behind that again you have people walking back and forth with figures on sticks. The figures casts shadows on the end og the cavewall - shadows made by a bonfire behind the men with the figures.

All people see are just shadows flickering across the cavewall - and it is extremely difficult to make them do otherwise.

Now, behind the bonfire, there is a caveopening, and if you go out of that, you will find the sun. Here very few people reside, among them the true philosophers. Normal people are unable to stay out here for to long, because the sun is blinding them.

The sun is the truth.

Now, the task of the philosopher is to enter the cave and try to loosen up the straps binding the normal people to their fixed position - looking into the wall. That is what you call enligtentment, taking the ligth from outside the cage, and ligtening up down there in the end of the cage.

You Baron are one of those people, it is a gruesome task you have commenced, but you are serving the very basis of western civilisation - being in the company of persons as Socrates and Voltaire.

I read the post by El Inglés (and his previous one), and I found it uncomfortable and disturbing -- for the simple reason that I had trouble arguing against it.I don't know what's going to happen in Europe -- I intend to see as much of it as I can before it disappears.I do think El Inglés has taken the extrapolation a bit too far -- your suggestion of "a Balkanized patchwork of warring factions existing in a state of chronic low-level warfare" seems more likely to me.

The Internet is not a venue for uninhibited non-PC discussion. I told you so. There are a lot of people on both Left and Right doing everything in their power to get this site (and others like it) down, and they won't stop until they've succeeded. I'd seek out a method of disseminating ideas with less single points of failure than the blogosphere.

Good luck. Despite my frustrated departure a while back, I support Gates of Vienna.

I understand your desire to salute GoV for it's invaluable contribution to the Counterjihad, but I'm afraid that Plato's work and political inclinations (anti-democratic, elitist (to say the least), collectivist) will provide little support for the defence of traditional Western values. You can use the epistemological metaphor of the cave and recast it in the light of a benign "happy camper" vision of what you call "enligtentment", but bear in mind that Plato's magnum opus on State and Politics was a downright dictatorial, collectivist blueprint for his type of philosopher's utopian society. When given political power, you'll see the Plato-style philosopher reappear as a "benevolent" member of the ruling caste of technocrats. This ideal has always been the quintessential leftist dream, and I've never heard the Baron nor Dymphna advocate any form of avant garde, leftist, Platonistic "enlightenment". You just look at the French Revolution to see what you'll end up with.

I don't think you'll be needing a refresher on your marlinespike skills...most will be tying their own knots.

From Large Bloody Infidel Heads:

"Bruce Bawer has an excellent piece at City Journal on “creeping sharia,” the cultural and legal front of the global jihad—and it isn’t only happening in Europe...The Anatomy of Surrender"

Yes...quite.

Unless pedaling your bicycle, plugging your Ipod into your coconut, and publicly preening over how efficiently your server is performing is some heretofore undiscovered tactic to preserve Western culture.

My plumbing at the BilgeLodge is performing most excellently, but that's not something I see fit to post about, no matter how many hundreds of dullards stand waiting to offer affirmation and congratulate me on the fact.

I have just subscribed (under my real name). This is a war, and we have to subsidize it as long as we can. The level of PC oozing from the US is truly frightening. It seems there is no place to hide anymore.

About the El Ingles piece: I won't offer any detailed counter-arguments now. However, I'll say this: there is definitely a tune of too clever by half coming from it.

Like, you know, some people blinded by their own intelligence, who set up on some complex demonstration. They first get from point A to point B, and this seems reasonable enough. Then, they proceed from B to C, and it still looks OK. By the time they have got to Z, however, they have proven you that the earth is flat, or something like that.

I have actually known such people. It's both fascinating and infuriating to watch them think.

I'll just say this. I'm writing from France. Among the people who are on the same level of awareness and concern about the Muslim issue than Gates of Vienna -- meaning a tiny fringe --, the general feeling would rather be that we are heading towards the exact opposite point to the one suggested by El Ingles.

Not genocide of Muslims in Europe, but genocide of native Europeans by demographic substitution of Muslim immigrants.

It is interesting to know that this notion of genocide by substitution has been put forth several decades ago by Aimé Césaire, the black poet, left-winger, ex-communist, ex-politician from Martinique, who passed away a few days ago.

However, he was referring to the possible whitening of this tiny French piece of territory in the Caribbean, through an official programme which encouraged the black natives of Martinique to go study and work in France, while white Frenchmen from the mainland would fly to Martinique in droves to take up posts in the civil service.

Aimé Césaire, in spite of being from the radical Left and a mouthpiece for the victim mentality of ethnic minorities, has been universally praised when he died, by the right and left alike. He is supposed to be some sort of national hero.

However, in 2008, nobody in their right mind would suggest in polite company here that the French people, or the European peoples, are threatened of genocide by substitution because of mass Muslim immigration.

Doing so in public, under your real name, would immediately get you branded as a racist, a fascist and a neo-nazi; you might lose your job; you'd be barred for life from a career in the media or academic circles; and you might very well be prosecuted and sentenced in court for inciting racial hatred.

This is an obvious proof that the notion of genocide only applies to minorities, preferably non-Western, non-white peoples.

White aboriginal people of Western countries are supposed to put up with the possibility of being eradicated, and shut up when this is actually happening.

See, not accepting to disappear silently, along with your people and your civilization, that would be racist.

So here go my 20 $.

Incidentally, would you Americans suggest that Mexican genocide on US territory is a possibility, with whole parts of the South-West having already reached quasi-secession status, and many American citizens being allowed to pack virtually unlimited firepower for their own use?

The Mexican immigration situation in the United States is strikingly similar to the Muslim situation in Europe, minus jihad.

From what I read in Samuel Huntington's "Who are we?", you guys have been dragged down the road of secession much further than we have been here in France. Yet. Not that this is anything to gloat over on this side of the pond, naturally.

LGF, PJM and the others are useful, if only by showing the more alert readers that they must look elsewhere for answers.

A Balkanized Europe sounds likely to me too, in the mid term.

But how long moslems will care to remain in Europe once the oasis's of the welfare states are dried up is a question. Another is whether outside powers will leave a wrecked Europe alone or will they meddle. (If i were Russia, for example, I would declare myself the protector of Christian Europe and annex, annex, annex; acquiring in a couple swallows much choice real estate and several hundred million desirable subjects.) Still another question is, following the precedent of Prussia, whether one small but tough state will fight its way to preeminence, and gradually unite Europe around it.

Such a militant state would probably be the one whose people clung to Bibles and guns, to use a recent American expression.

Whiskey_199: We got here because female-dominated politics demanded it. Along with other desired outcomes, single motherhood, dislike of math/science/nerd-dom, multiculturalism, and desire for status among all (check out Home and Garden Television).

Single motherhood is preferable to being locked into an abusive relationship. There are definitely techgrrls who love math, science, and nerd-dom...I'm one of them, and I'll go tête-à-tête with anyone, except when they talk about video games. About multiculturalism...variety is the spice of life! And if you think women want beautiful homes and gardens as one-upsmanship in some kind of a pack, you are projecting I think. We want to make ourselves and our surroundings (including the environment) beautiful because it is the excellent, human thing to do.

If i were Russia, for example, I would declare myself the protector of Christian Europe and annex, annex, annex; acquiring in a couple swallows much choice real estate and several hundred million desirable subjects.

I wouldn't annex, just protect. Then countries left out in the cold by EU and/or NATO, like Serbia, will come by themselves. Ukraine is in an interesting position, torn between East and West. With the current malgovernance by the West, she just might choose East. I can't blame them.

"Not genocide of Muslims in Europe, but genocide of native Europeans by demographic substitution of Muslim immigrants."

Not genocide. That requires physical destruction, destroying the genus as it were. Democide would be better, it means destroying a Demos - a people.

As for that bloody essay, we don't want "genocide" or Balkanization to happen, we want to stop that with nothing more than a discriminatory immigration policy which can be enforced without a single drop of blood being shed. That essay tried to predict what would happen without such politically impossible though wise and prudent measures such as a sane immigration policy.

"I posted that the fascist-huggers have done more to discredit the anti-jihad movement than CAIR could ever do, and you asked, "so what is to be done?"

What is to be done is to continue educating people and exposing the agenda of the jihadists. What is not to be done is to rant about concentration camps and genocide and mass deportations."-CJ

Hmmm, interesting strategy. He wants to "edumacate" us and "expose" them.

Well, thankee very much, Professor Lizard!

Now what should be done to reverse the thing you have educated us by exposing?

Oh...well....hmmm...ahhh. Let's NOT discuss that, because he won't have it.

He gives us the REAL reason in this reply:

"I'm not in favor of a draft, and most of the current military leadership of the US agrees with me. They don't want conscription because they know that the quality of the military would decline drastically."-CJ

Yes...it does no good at all for someone to dress up in the snazzy uniform if they're not willing to shoot the gun...AT someone, see?

So there's where HIS mind is at...when the war starts, he all of a sudden remembers his scruples, takes of his uniform, and pedals away on his little bicycle.

I'm pretty certain though, that he'll be back, after the smoke has cleared, to keen and wail over the senseless destruction and inhumanity.

As they say in Texas:

"All hat and no cattle."

(I hope you've enjoyed this tour of the LizardMind. It has been my pleasure to be your guide this morning. Please frequent our Gift Shop).

[quote: eyb]"..Still another question is, following the precedent of Prussia, whether one small but tough state will fight its way to preeminence, and gradually unite Europe around it.."

Prussia, the militarized, completely centralized, collectivistic Nation as an example to emulate in defence of Western civilization? Oh my, let's invite the polar bears to guard the seals. Better ask what Prussia as a model has not done to destroy traditional civilization in Europe. A militant state can never uphold traditional values; it will always degrade individuality and freedom, two pillars of true conservatism.

Speaking however of people who "cling to bibles," I agree that Christinanity may be the most likely candidate for trans-national resistance to Islamization. Not lofty "liberal", or "progressive" Christianity of course. Not the degenerate voodoo-Christ kind of bible-thumping Protestantism either, but the survival and perseverance of the traditional faith of Europe, that inspired the battles against the Mohammedans at Poitiers in 732 and Vienna in 1683. Some of the comments by B-16 might be interpreted as hopegiving evidence, that not all Latin Brethern have (since Vat. II) forsaken their cultural and spiritual heritage.

The history of Prussia is profoundly interesting, and has significant implications for the history of 20th century Europe, for good and for bad. But I think Prussia has been over-demonized.

Also here in Denmark - we never quite forgot that they took Sleswig from us. What we do tend to forget, happily, is that it was the 1863 Danish constitution that caused the 1864 war... We broke the conditions of the 1850 peace agreement, and though England and Russia tried to motivate us for a peaceful settlement, we continued our way (including Holstein into Denmark).

I just took a troll through the first part of LGF's comments' section, and it reads more like a coffee clatch than anything else. It reminds me of the "Flirty 30's" chatroom I was a member of in the mid-90s...inanity piled on inanity scrolling by, punctuated by the occasional cyberfling. I don't think more than half of them even know what's going on.

B&D, if there is one piece of advice I can give you, as a student of Gramsci, it's this: a ship doesn't turn until it reachs a swingpoint, and being at the swingpoint is lonely but not fruitless. Or, as Theodore Damphryle pointed out (I think it was him), when facing numerous choices, taking the hardest ones often result in the greatest benefit.

I wish that I wasn't out of work right now, or I would hit your tip jar. You do a good job. That Charles guy at LGF is an as*hole. An arrogant *sshole. He banned me and I hadn't posted anything for a while.Thineprof-

There was a point to my display of the trophies that I pulled out of The Bicyclist's bilge strainer.

He is a living example of the effect of the "Hate Crime" meme upon a targeted population...and in his case, a VERY targeted population,(Well-off male Caucasian American Jewish Zionist Blogger residing in California...you can't GET much more vulnerable than the various little subsets of faith and ethnicity and socio-economics that he exists in, can you?).

CJ is the kind of guy that Osama bin Pig-f*cker would give his remaining testicle to saw the head off of, is he not?

And CJ knows this quite well.

But as you can plainly see, he is incapable of even contemplating any pro-active resistance to this fate that might involve violence in any way.

If the social control thought mechanism of "Hate Crime" can neuter even such as the Lizard King, then who among us is immune? And what shoals anf reefs may lay in our course because of this?

The illegal immigration situation in the U.S. is indeed strikingly similar to the Muslim situation in Europe. With one major exception of course. Where the citizens of Europe have not mounted any significant opposition to their creeping Sharia, American citizens have organized, demonstrated and lobbied against the U.S. government’s imposition of a foreign culture and language upon them. One result of those actions is that local governments are now dealing with the negative impact those millions of illegal immigrants have created.Another result would be the hysterical accusations of racism, bigotry, nazism and fascism that the pc folks engage in whenever Americans (or Europeans) suggest they have a right to their own nation and culture.Drawing the ire of the pc crowd is a badge of honor. Well worth $20.

"..Where the citizens of Europe have not mounted any significant opposition to their creeping Sharia, American citizens have.."

Yeah, I know, the slow process of parliamentary democracy. But consider this: everywhere in Europe, political parties that are vehemently opposed to Islamization are attracting more and more potential votes by the day. It concerns millions of people all across Europe. I wouldn't call that insignificant.

I understand your desire to salute GoV for it's invaluable contribution to the Counterjihad, but I'm afraid that Plato's work and political inclinations (anti-democratic, elitist (to say the least), collectivist) will provide little support for the defence of traditional Western values.

Well, claiming to uphold truth in regard to classics would be a little presumptous - after all, as Socrates said; I am the wisest person i know, because i know i do not know anything.

But to define the essence of western value, i would say that the search for truth is a such. It is handed down to us from the ancient Egypt actually - how to find the truth is the centerpoint of scientific method.

I think you should differentiate between pshilosophy as such and political philosophy.

When it comes to philosophy as such, you just cannot ignore Plato - he is and will always be one the greatest thinkers.

And the idea behind his philosopher state is sound enough - it is just, in my view, unbalanced. His argument against democracy is, that it ends up in sofism; superficiality, bad leadership and so on. This is exactly what is happening in Europe right now. His conlusion is to make a spartanic system, where democracy is walled in by a strong state. This is his mistake, the state should be walled in by democracy.

The spirit of democracy should rule first.

Where do you find the spirit of democracy? - actually you find it Platos dialogue about the trial of Socrates, because Socrates is the original beacon of light, the inventor of freedom of speech.

You can also find it in the historical sources written in the classic time - Thycudides is my favourite.

Prussian Blut und Eisen isn't the most pleasant Rx to swallow, but you may have to. And there are worse futures, some of which el Ing. has sketched.

Hynrik,

I wouldn't annex, just protect. Then countries left out in the cold by EU and/or NATO, like Serbia, will come by themselves. Ukraine is in an interesting position, torn between East and West. With the current malgovernance by the West, she just might choose East. I can't blame them.

Neither would I. And as EU and NATO decay into irrelevance, then Russia may have many more clients than little Serbia.

Furthermore, if Moscow were to become the protector of Christian Europe someday, then all anti-jihadists should regard it as the one true and legitimate government. From ComIntern to ChristIntern. How ironic would that be?

Sagunto-Yes. Insignificant was poorly chosen.It wasn't my intention to diminish the efforts of rank and file Europeans or engage in some sort of twisted peeing contest.I just think the anti-illegal immigration/minuteman/border security advocate model works and I don't know why citizens everywhere don't avail themselves of that model.For instance, there are a goodly number of experts and scholars in the west who have pointed out the destructive influence of Islam on the west. They use blogs, websites, videos, movies, books, symposiums lectures and so forth. I have learned a great deal from them and I don't discount their efforts and their expertise. Indeed, I could live 5 or 6 lifetimes and still not be their intellectual equal. But all their expertise and knowledge didn't stop Rice from prohibiting terms like jihadists and mujahideen or references to Islamo-fascism. They haven't stopped the endless concessions to Islamic groups throughout the US have they?No.There will be no top down effort to stop creeping sharia in the west.The only way to stop it, or slow it and hopefully reverse it begins on the ground.That is what I mean to say.

It is my opinion that you took take LGF too seriously and show yourselves to be a bit thin skinned.

If your blog is going to have an impact, it will cause a disturbance. If your blog is going to cause thinking to take place, it will experience a push-back, and that from some very unlikely sources.

Charles offers a constant diet of Muslim bashing, often taken out of context, and always given with no commentary by Charles. The comments section is a glorified chat room. Charles himself, never provides commentary or analysis, because he can't. That is why your far more intellectual offerings are taken out of context by LGF ... you shoot too high.

You have forced some ugly but realistic issues to the fore and that always creates a stir.

Here is my advice. Stop duelling with LGF as it cheapens your product and dirties the shine. I link to your blog almost daily because of its thoughtful content ... I don't, however, enjoy the pissing contest.

I have re-read the article by El Ingles but this time from the point of view of an ethicist . I found a very well constructed series of conceptualizations which were extrapolations of extant conditions .At no time did I detect any statement that could be described as unethical . It says much about the lack of intellectual capacity at Pajamas Media .

I'm sorry to hear about the this, but you knew it had to come. One thing we should not do is be too hard on PJM, and LGF, they serve an important purpose.

They have to distances themselves from your site because they are mainstream and postings of this type are problematic and will be used against them. We need them to bring in the new blood, and start the thought process, but that process doesn't end with LGF, and for those already convinced there is GoV, and other sites.

Stormgaard (and others) - for a fascinating jaunt through the LGF archives (unauthorized), I recommend Nodrog's Greatest Hits, found at www.nodrogsgreatesthits.blogspot.com. Yes, I know, a shameless plug ...

I wouldn't waste too much time on Gulf Coast Pundit - in contrast to Dymphna's view I think many of the posters there are as shallow and stupid as any on Little Green Footballs (hello Rayra, Reaganite!). They just had a hissy pissy fit when the LGF club got too big, and so they headed over there.

There's no 'pissing contest'. There's been a series of vicious attacks from LGF, a frantic effort to prove CJ wrong with *real* evidence - and the frustration of CJ not even acknowleging the rebuttals he got - instead he repeatedly chose to increase the stakes to prove himself right, drawing time and energy from what we're really in business for, defending Western civilization.

My experience is that ignoring libel is the wrong approach. It has to be denied, preferably proven false, even though the person doing the libel may not even acknowledge the evidence he gets. It'll then boil down to the game of who trusts who, of 3rd parties judging the evidence and drawing their conclusions. It's not easy, it's not even fair, and failure to do the Right Thing may be ruinous.

I didn't like the El Ingles piece either - but that anyone would open a war over a piece of hypothetical writing, which is a fine literary tradition, was way beyond my imagination.

We'll stick to our stuff, and those of us having the economical means will support those who have more brains than money.

eatyourbeans: But how long moslems will care to remain in Europe once the oasis's of the welfare states are dried up is a question.

Isn’t this already asked and answered in Il Englés’s piece? There seems little hope that immigration restrictions will be put in place anytime soon. They appear just as unlikely as any sort of mass deportations. Ergo, Islamization will have progressed too far for comfort in most places, even after the welfare-jizya dries up. By then, Muslims will be solidly entrenched. There might be some defections back to home countries but not enough to matter. The window of immigration being held open for far too long will prove equally fatal as Islam’s presence in the first place.

What’s more, much as with Spain, jihadist doctrine will conveniently determine that—since Mohammad once farted in Europe’s general direction—it has always been historically Muslim lands and must be retained or re-conquered at all costs. Islam being the looting culture that it is, I’m hard pressed to envision Europe’s Muslims foregoing the chance to rape out so much concentrated wealth.

This leaves us with an increasingly disgruntled and hostile Muslim population that will become even more predatory than it is already. The towering Muslim sense of entitlement and their delusions of being a Master Race™ all militate towards greater degrees of armed assault or resistance of the sort we have already seen in Paris and Amsterdam. These are the picture perfect ingredients for one or the other of El Inglés’s “discontinuities”.

Another is whether outside powers will leave a wrecked Europe alone or will they meddle. (If i were Russia, for example, I would declare myself the protector of Christian Europe and annex, annex, annex; acquiring in a couple swallows much choice real estate and several hundred million desirable subjects.)

This raises a truly uncomfortable question of whether America would tolerate the regeneration of Soviet era satellite states, with or without any Iron Curtain. Russia’s constant triangulation against American security interests and assistance to terrorist states in general makes this a definite issue. Europe’s own idiotic anti-Americanism has already led it to reject a non-Russian controlled pipeline in favor of having Moscow’s hand on their energy valve. Most definitely, not a Good Thing™. Europe—and its nuclear arsenals—falling into Islamic hands or Russian hands both seem to be equally undesirable scenarios.

Still another question is, following the precedent of Prussia, whether one small but tough state will fight its way to preeminence, and gradually unite Europe around it.

This returns us to some of El Inglés’s premises. In his article he predicts a cascade or avalanche condition whereby fighting in one weakened European nation spills over into another in a contagious epidemic. Considering that—shorn of its traditional borders—Muslims will be free to mobilize throughout Europe and shore up beleaguered co-religionists wherever anti-Islamic resistance manifests most strongly.

It is this escalation of intensity that would seem to militate against the European “Balkanization” that others predict. Muslims have a strong inclination to maximize the level of violence once it has begun. It is difficult to imagine that this will not produce “ripple effects”. While maybe not the case of one nation’s stand inspiring a neighbor to do the same, there is little doubt that Muslim raiders will be far less discriminate about their targets and quite likely to cause trouble along the way to whatever final destination. Such a lack of restraint is one hallmark of Muslim behavior—overreaching being the other—and could just as easily come into play in this case.

While I agree that the fragmented nature of Europe’s rather small nation-states would readily facilitate such Balkanization, this very same fact might also work against it. Truly tiny nations, like Luxemburg or Portugal, would have a tough time going it alone. There would be a lot of pressure to confederate in defense against the Muslim foe. Balkanization plays too much into Islam’s hands for it to be the best outcome. Not that any of this represents anything remotely approaching a best outcome.

dt: There will be no top down effort to stop creeping sharia in the west. The only way to stop it, or slow it and hopefully reverse it begins on the ground.

This is saddest of all. There is overwhelming evidence that Islam is extremely sensitive to decapitating strikes. Israel’s elimination of Yassin and Rantissi in swift succession has left Fatah and Hamas clutching at each other’s throats to a near-exclusion of major attacks against Israel. If Western militaries initiated a campaign of targeted assassinations against Islam’s financial, clerical and academic aristocracy, jihad would lose a significant amount of its impetus. It would also be a ”strong horse” demonstration of the exact sort needed to encourage fence-sitting Muslims about converting away from Islam.

Top Down attrition of Islam’s command structure is one of the absolute best ways of preventing a Muslim holocaust. Unfortunately, Western politicians have ensconced themselves in a “closed shop” or guild mentality that forbids the elimination of other political leaders. Robert Mugabe’s continuing theft of oxygen is solid proof of this. Such aversion to killing their own will cripple any top-down approach and almost guarantee a far more bloody bottom-up slaughter.

the doctor: I have re-read the article by El Ingles but this time from the point of view of an ethicist . I found a very well constructed series of conceptualizations which were extrapolations of extant conditions. At no time did I detect any statement that could be described as unethical . It says much about the lack of intellectual capacity at Pajamas Media.

I agree and find this to be one the most disturbing features of all. El Inglés’s article took great pains to make very clear his non-advocacy of genocide. Furthermore, only by carefully examining the various outcomes described therein will a path that avoids genocide be found. Suppressing and censuring such thoughtful works is the surest way to bring this new holocaust about.

I see what you mean, and I agree. Let me answer in a few words your Q:"..I just think the anti-illegal immigration/minuteman/border security advocate model works and I don't know why citizens everywhere don't avail themselves of that model.."

Just questions; I mean logical. Part of the problem with Islamization is, that the bulk of todays Muslim migration to the Netherlands for instance (I can't speak for other countries) consists of the migration of import-brides. Third generation Muslims, espec. the males, prefer to get their Muslim partners from abroad. This is not illegal, so there you go. It's not a matter of illegal immigration, but a matter of islamization. Muslims "immigrated" in the '70s, but today behave more like Islamic colonists (actively recruted back then, as a temporary workforce, the-less-educated-the-better, by outdated industries on the brink of phasing out). The huge problems stand in stark contrast to the history of all other groups of immigrants in my country. In almost all other cases it went pretty well, but by importing Islam it all went - and still goes - horribly wrong.

@EYB,

"..Prussian Blut und Eisen isn't the most pleasant Rx to swallow, but you may have to. And there are worse futures, some of which el Ing. has sketched.."

The last part may very well be true, nevertheless about the Blut und Eisen: that's not the most worrying part. Two remarks:- the centralist, leftist, bureaucratic and collectivist parts of the "Prussian model" are diametrically opposed to civilization as I see it. As a means to an end, I'd say that means quickly tend to develop into ends themselves. Already the EU is too Prussian for my taste. I think that the dismantling of this Prussian superstate would be the better idea to begin with.- Resisting Islamization will not be a state matter for the simple reason that Mr. Bin Laden introduced the novelty that in this age of globalization, waging jihad can also be the domain of private enterprise, instead of the orthodox Islamic view that jihad is the exclusive duty of the Islamic state. The battle will be fought and decided on far more subsidiary levels than that of the nation, like in our neighbourhoods.

@yggdrasil,

I fully subscribe to the distinction you try to make between Plato the politician and Plato the philosopher. That's exactly why I pointed out that the metaphor of the cave, was epistemological in nature, not political, though Plato's famous contempt for other philosophers and ordinary people clearly transpires. Agreed, he can be reckoned among the most prominent thinkers of his day and age, but already in the Middle Ages, European philosophers declared that they stood on the shoulders of these giants, but could see further. The Greeks had many great thinkers, but never developed science. Now why was that? The near idolization of Greek philosophy only came later as an unfortionate by-product of the so-called "Renaissance", in itself a misleading label. Socrates was convicted for his support of an elitist, "leftist" coup d'Etat in Athens which was an attempt to introduce totalitarian rule (30 Tyrants) at the cost of democracy.Plato's work tries to portray his Socrates as some sort of martyr for free speech, which in fact he was not, quite the opposite. It was the old and familiar "Revolt of the Elites" (Lasch). Didn't you know that? ;-)

"Business is business"This isn't a business decision on the part of Pajamas Media--it's simple lack of principles.The ad revenue was supposed to support a principled attempt to do it better than the MSM, yet when the revenue is threatened the first thing to be thrown overboard to lighten ship is their tolerance of inconvenient viewpoints.I don't wish them well. We're at war and in war one of the most dangerous hazards is an inconsistent and treacherous ally.

This raises a truly uncomfortable question of whether America would tolerate the regeneration of Soviet era satellite states, with or without any Iron Curtain.

A related question - what would the US do? If states - Serbia is the prime example, Greece is along, others may follow - percieve US policy to be cynical and against their interests, why not turn to Russia? They have abandoned the expansionist Communist ideology, the danger that some Americans percieve is not there any longer.

Sure, democracy isn't doing very well in Russia. Actually, it's quite bad. And, because the Putin rule is percieved as legitimate in Russia, banging on 'human rights' issues probably won't make much of a difference, in sharp contrast to the Soviet days.

And the US? Unless they bring up an economical miracle, their global influence will go down, pure and simple. I'm not sure the US government even understands the long term implications of their heavy deficit spending. The US isn't the powerhouse it used to be, but it still pretends.

We're in for interesting times. I hope the US will come to its senses and pay more attention to the honest concerns of its allies.

The Greeks had many great thinkers, but never developed science. Now why was that?

Hm, well Aristotle actually laid out the foundation for modern emperistic science. Mathematics, astronomy, medicin and many other sciences were already working in full mode in classic time - so I am sorry, but on this point i respectfully disagree.

The near idolization of Greek philosophy only came later as an unfortionate by-product of the so-called "Renaissance", in itself a misleading label.

Well, again, no the romans idolized the greeks as well - Marcus Aurelius, among others, describes how his fosterfather, the former emperor had Socrates as his ideal. In law you discern between natural low and practical law - natural law being the ethical foundation of the law. This is a respectful acknowledgement of the greek thought behind law - again a roman thing. The west has always idolized the greeks, because they are worth it - not just because they started our civilization.

Socrates was convicted for his support of an elitist, "leftist" coup d'Etat in Athens which was an attempt to introduce totalitarian rule (30 Tyrants) at the cost of democracy.Plato's work tries to portray his Socrates as some sort of martyr for free speech, which in fact he was not, quite the opposite. It was the old and familiar "Revolt of the Elites" (Lasch). Didn't you know that?

Well that is one way to see it - but since we have very few sources, other than Plato to the philosophy of Socrates, how can you be so sure, that it is a lie???

If you see Socrates framed by the other sources we have to the political life of ancient Greece - for me it is quite clear that he must have been the very symbol of democracy. There were two disciples of Socrates; Diogenes and Plato - they each symbolized facets of his teaching. Diogenes lived in barrel, to be free and able to say whatever he wanted. If he was inspired by Socrates to this - then how could Socrates not be a symbol of free speech???

Democracy was the political system that Athens had - as system of export. Freedom of speech is the principle of democracy, would´nt the primary philosopher of Athens defend freedom of speech?????

Henrik R Clausen: A related question - what would the US do? If states - Serbia is the prime example, Greece is along, others may follow - percieve US policy to be cynical and against their interests, why not turn to Russia? They have abandoned the expansionist Communist ideology, the danger that some Americans percieve is not there any longer.

First off, modern Russia is not much more than USSR Lite. A communist kleptocracy has been replaced by an autocratic-leaning oligarchy and that's about it. Putin's KGB legacy exemplifies this.

That said, Russia's embrace would be just as withering as the USSR's, regardless of how much lipstick Putin has smeared on the old sow. Furthermore, much like Islam, Russia's future is facilitated by expansion more than any other motive force. Neither entity does so hot on the subjects of industrialization or agriculture, two of the three ways to create wealth (mining being the third).

Once Europe finally begins to take its lumps over their Muslim issue, a far more jaundiced eye will likely be cast upon Russia's continuing support for terrorist Islamic regimes. Not that Europe hasn't got a large slice of that same humble pie to feast upon themselves.

I maintain that there is a combination of residual Cold Warrior mentality and certifiable remnants of the Cold War itself still going on. Enough so to where some portions of that model still apply. Given that Islamic terrorism was largely midwifed by the Soviets, there certainly seems good reason to retain elements of that model.

Given that, having Europe fall under some sort of Russian umbrella or pact would stick in America's craw big time. However strained our special relationship with the Euros may be, we have far more in common with them than do the Russians. Sadly, European socialism is still cresting and this creates a false sense of political rapport with Russia's own socialist heritage. This commonality is probably the greatest danger in terms of any incentive for Europe to embrace Russia.

Does anyone here honestly think that a EU-Russian confederation would be a Good Thing?

Zenster concerning islamic organisations "sensitivity" to decapitating strikes : To kill terrorist leaders is something that doesn't need any further justification. The very fact that it CAN be done makes it an obligation for any government who tries to keep the respect of its citizens. This obligation is not rooted in rational thinking, but rather in the emotional necessety for STRIKING BACK. It was for this reason that Churchill ordered the early bombing raids against germany in WW2. We should not underestimate the ability of terrorist organisations to replace their leadership.In some ocations it might even be true , that we helped them to get rid of "dead wood" , and thereby made it possible for younger,even more brutal members to rise up through the ranks. Decapitating strikes is mostly a good thing, because it is better than nothing.

A British citizen who converted to Christianity from Islam and then complained to police when locals threatened to burn his house down was told by officers to “stop being a crusader”, according to a new report. Nissar Hussein, 43, from Bradford, West Yorkshire, who was born and raised in Britain, converted from Islam to Christianity with his wife, Qubra, in 1996.

The report says that he was subjected to a number of attacks and, after being told that his house would be burnt down if he did not repent and return to Islam, reported the threat to the police. It says he was told that such threats were rarely carried out and the police officer told him to “stop being a crusader and move to another place”. A few days later the unoccupied house next door was set on fire.

I just got ousted from LGF - (my second time)... for reminding the good people there that the Muslims are worse than the Aztecs ever were. At least the Aztecs held their human sacrifice ceremonies at pre-ordained moments and against designated victims.

The idiots accused me of wanting to goose-step Jews to the gas chambers... I tried to make them consider Jewess Fiamma Nirensteinhttp://www.fiammanirenstein.com/articoli_politica.asp?Categoria=5in a coalition with Berlusconi, Fini (ex Fascist)and Lega Nord's Bossi (a bit like the Vlaams guy). Such coalitions - which tend to recoup the fringes and make them mainstream, might be just what the doctor ordered... or at least one big step in the right direction. Israel certainly exulted... but for Charles and the Pajama fools (I'm ashamed to admit that I regularly sleep in my underwear), I'm a skull-cracking neo-nazi kapo and USA good, Europe bad, unga-dunga!

[quote: yggdrasil]"..Hm, well Aristotle actually laid out the foundation for modern emperistic science. Mathematics, astronomy, medicin and many other sciences were already working in full mode in classic time - so I am sorry, but on this point i respectfully disagree.."

Don't be sorry, let's just see. You've probably heard of Averroës. He and his followers were doctrinaire Aristotelians -proclaiming that his physics was complete and infallible. So much for science in Islam, which never had a chance anyway, not even with this scholar.Knowledge, yes some; but science? No. On a wider note: perhaps you confuse science with technology?

Anyway. The medieval Europeans however didn't just copy Aristotle, but improved on him. Aristotle's empiricism didn't interfere with his theorizing. He taught that the speed at which objects fall to earth is proportionate to their weight -a stone twice as heavy will fall twice as fast. He could have easily falsified this claim but he didn't. Scholastic medieval scholars did; as with many of his ludicrous "scientific" claims (such as the one about the reason why objects move; by the air closing behind it. No attention paid to open the air in front of it. He needed Jean Buridan (1300-1358), one of the prominent scholastic scientists to state the obvious). Same with Democritus, who did speculate about "atoms" but he didn't anticipate scientific atomic theory as some like to suggest. All advanced civilizations China, India, Greece and Rome, and Islam also had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did it develop into chemistry. In short: Ancient Greece came close but didn't quite make it.

And Plato, well. Both the Plato delivered Socrates and Plato himself considered empiricism, like astronomical observations, a "waste of time". Plato advised his students to approach astronomy through philosophy and to "leave the starry heavens alone". So you have anti-empirical speculative philosophies and atheoretical collections of facts. You might call this science. But the consensus today is that it wasn't.Science started only once in Europe, during the so-called "Dark" Middle Ages (that undying myth), at the European Universities from the 12th century onwards.

And it might be that for people in Classical Greece, the medical practices provided a great deal of comfort, but to call that science? Perhaps you'd then consider the natural philosophy of Hahnemann to be science also? ;-)

Zenster-I wasn't referring to a "Top Down attrition of Islam’s command structure" resulting from any military operation. No question that strategy works. But in order for that plan to work, a threat has to be acknowledged and acted upon with the intention of eliminating that threat. The top, and by that I mean our elected officials, will not acknowledge the presence of Muslims intent on imposing sharia as a threat. Rather, these officials consider the only threat to be the result of European (or here in the US, American) racism, xenophobia or intolerance. It is that attitude, shared by those at the top of our political system that I referred to. It is that attitude that will not change until those of us here on the ground make them change. Sagunto-You're right. And I am aware of the difference between Islamization in Europe and illegal immigrants (also actively recruited as a temporary workforce, the-less-educated-the-better) in the US.The two things are not identical. The effect of Muslim immigration in the Netherlands is as you say, horrible.The effects of unchecked illegal immigration into the US are perhaps less horrific, although the families and victims of illegal alien criminals might argue that point.I do not say the one is equal to the other. I do not diminish the very real threat that lives right outside your door.I say the solution to both is the direct involvement of the respective citizenries. I say there has to come a time when the citizens themselves say enough and stand their ground.Again. I point to the anti-illegal immigrant/minuteman/border security advocates success’ here in the US as an example. Because It works. And it works where we all live, at the grassroots level.The current political leadership, in the US and Europe, does not concern itself with the trials and tribulations that they have inflicted on their citizens.I’m supposed to wait for them to do the right thing?Again, no disrespect.

Zenster-I wasn't referring to a "Top Down attrition of Islam’s command structure" resulting from any military operation. No question that strategy works. But in order for that plan to work, a threat has to be acknowledged and acted upon with the intention of eliminating that threat. The top, and by that I mean our elected officials, will not acknowledge the presence of Muslims intent on imposing sharia as a threat. Rather, these officials consider the only threat to be the result of European (or here in the US, American) racism, xenophobia or intolerance. It is that attitude, shared by those at the top of our political system that I referred to. It is that attitude that will not change until those of us here on the ground make them change. Sagunto-You're right. And I am aware of the difference between Islamization in Europe and illegal immigrants (also actively recruited as a temporary workforce, the-less-educated-the-better) in the US.The two things are not identical. The effect of Muslim immigration in the Netherlands is as you say, horrible.The effects of unchecked illegal immigration into the US are perhaps less horrific, although the families and victims of illegal alien criminals might argue that point.I do not say the one is equal to the other. I do not diminish the very real threat that lives right outside your door.I say the solution to both is the direct involvement of the respective citizenries. I say there has to come a time when the citizens themselves say enough and stand their ground.Again. I point to the anti-illegal immigrant/minuteman/border security advocates success’ here in the US as an example. Because It works. And it works where we all live, at the grassroots level.The current political leadership, in the US and Europe, does not concern itself with the trials and tribulations that they have inflicted on their citizens.I’m supposed to wait for them to do the right thing?Again, no disrespect.

Single Motherhood is presented by feminists, entertainment (oriented to women, such as WE, Oxygen, Lifetime, etc.) and the media (NYTimes) as the preferred outcome. It is celebrated. Pushed over the nuclear family. More than 50% of births in the UK are single mothers, the figure for the Black community nationwide is 70%, 90% urban core, and among America as a whole nearly 40%.

The known outcomes for this social pattern -- British thuggery, American thuggery, is not good. Nor are they conducive to constructing productive societies. Exceptions (abusive relationships) should not be the rule. And as Dalrymple points out, women in transient relations with those not the father of their children experience far higher rates of abuse and themselves (particularly sex abuse of daughters) than marriages between biological parents.

This is the feminist ideal, what women wanted, and the outcome to society is bad.

You can watch HGTV (I do) and see it's oriented towards the status-obsession with women. Ala Sex and the City. The ads are telling. Cultural indicators are most obvious in the most trivial things.

As for multiculturalism, it has proven a disaster. Putnam's research shows decreased trust, increased social isolation, and more corruption, distrust in government. LA has far reduced trust and civic participation than the Midwest. It might bring trendy eateries, but reduces civic life to hunkered down isolation and heavy patterns of crime. Intriguingly, Putnam's research suggests people are less willing to intervene in multicultural settings to enforce social order. Such as not harassing women on the bus, etc.

The economic and social success of the West has always (since around 1000 AD or so) rested on the good treatment of women. Along with monogamy and freeholding/smallholding and rule of law. However like everything else, taken to extremes it can be damaging. The fairly feminized attitudes prevalent in today's society make the West unable to fight back against Jihad and Sharia and Islamism. Too much domination by women produces brain-dead PC/Multiculturalism, where pols pandering to women are afraid of "looking bad" by appearing "uncool" and standing up for Western Civilization and it's norms, standards. Meanwhile Nora Ephron's attitudes (white men are the root of all evil) are embraced by the feminized political and social culture.

[quote: dt]"..The current political leadership, in the US and Europe, does not concern itself with the trials and tribulations that they have inflicted on their citizens.I’m supposed to wait for them to do the right thing?Again, no disrespect.."

We are not supposed to wait, new political parties are formed and we'll vote for them. Like Wilders. You have someone like him on a national level in the US? The next general elections in Holland will display a landslide victory for parties opposed to islamization. Meanwhile politicians must be "helped" to understand the tide is actually turning. Politicians are predominantly followers and I agree, that concerning islamization, civilians must lead.

Whiskey, I agree with much of what you say, and the resort to mention of "abusive relationships" is spurious at best. This mythology of the family as rife with pandemic abuse is, like much other propaganda of the feminist machine, simply laughable. But it slides so easily off the tongues of folks who grew up learning it as truism.

The danger lies in presenting it to people head on. Better to revive the ideas of what is now known demeaningly as "paternalistic" society than to name it and throw it in the faces of women. Just pisses them off.

The fairly big conservative sites writing about jihad, LGF and Pajamas Media became powerful, and as we all know, too often POWER CORRUPTS. GoV was, is and will be for a long time the first site I check first in the morning and last in the night. keep it up!

As a far distant observer of Russian affairs, I think Putin and his associates are practicing the old creed of the Russian reactionaries of the 19th century, namely, "Czar, Church and Autocracy". Compared to the wondrous rigor and truth of Marxist thought, this seemed laughable stuff indeed, but the Russian people seem a lot happier with their government than we in the West are with ours, so the old fart-reactionaries may well have the last laugh.

So dismissing Russia as USSR Lite, a KGB kleptocracy, etc, etc, is in my opinion somewhat lazy and unimaginative. I think that Russia fell to the bottom of hell in the last century and now she is slowly climbing out of it. A resurgent, Orthodox,Christian and great Russia is wonderful news. Meanwhile the EU nations, I'm afraid, are on the diving board about to take the plunge. And my poor US is right behind you.

Look on the bright side. Russia has shown herself more than willing to kick moslem ass, as the islamicists of Grozny found out. So your trains and subways would be safe again.

As for the US, all we want to do is go wee, wee, wee all the way home and slam the door.

Since discovering your blog, around the time you were covering the Texas Islamic Pig Races, I've been a devoted follower. And that's in spite of being called a 'Pompous Git' right here in the GoV comments section, and falling under the receiving end of Dympha's keyboard. Hey, as the sage commented: if you can't take the heat, get out!

And geez, so many good comments and opinions that I am afraid to sound like I'm repeating old news.

Either way, keep fighting the good fight Baron & Dymphna. I can't contribute anything right now unfortunately (I'm a poor college student). But once I graduate this summer, I'll either donate or perhaps buy a Holger Danske shirt!

Whiskey_199

I agree with much of what you've said, particularly that feminization of the West has made our countries mere shadows of our fomer selves.

I only have one thing to contend with you.

The Italians and Spaniards very bad off -- no children.

I have been keeping a close eye on the indigenous demographics of Europe and have noticed that for the past 5 years that TFR (Total Fertility Rates) have been steadily going up.

While I definately think Spain and Britain are in for some serious pain in the near future, I would not say the same for countries like Italy and Germany. That's not to say they aren't in trouble as well, but from my (limited) contacts overseas and from as much raw data as I can find, not all of Europe is in for a demographic nightmare.

eatyourbeans

Although Russia is far from perfect, I agree that Russia is on the rise and that (in the long run) is a good thing.

Personally I find myself highly skeptical of a russian resurgence. Russia is being a bully right now, using its control of gas to cow western Europe into toeing its line on eastern Europe and various former soviet satellites. Lets not forget they're still cooperating with Iran. IRAN. Russia won't be our friend. Russia is a paranoid, always has been, always will be. Paranoia tends to megalomania, as a paranoiac will want to control their environment in order to prevent their fears from materialising. Russia has spent the better part of several centuries fearing a knife in the back. That's not something you'll see it give up in just a few years... and to prevent it, Russia wants to control the world, or at least the bits that might stop it achieving the goal of safety for Russia. That means Europe has to be subservient to Russian interests, and to achieve that they threaten turn off the gas.

Russia is being a bully right now, using its control of gas to cow western Europe into toeing its line on eastern Europe and various former soviet satellites. Lets not forget they're still cooperating with Iran. IRAN.

This is especially way I say Russia is far from perfect.

...Europe has to be subservient to Russian interests, and to achieve that they threaten turn off the gas.

Truth be told, given two distastful chioces, I'd rather see a Europe "subservient" to Russia than to any Muslims. US & Saudi Arabia anyone?

They way I see it, Russia is a potential ally. Not a natural ally, but a potential one. This mean we should criticise them when they do something stupid like making nuclear reactors for Iran or bully a former Soviet block like Georgia.

But we should also congratulate them when they attempt something positive e.g. Putin's attempts to turnaround the demographic mess of the Russian people.

Well Baron and Dymphna, I am deeply sorry about what happened.Firstly, because your blog is my favourite. From all the blogosphere, it is my favourite.Secondly, because I feel partly guilty for what happened, especially because I have been one of the commenters that intended to radicalise your wonderful blog the most. I have almost behaved like a troll some times but just because I felt, and still feel, that your blog reaches beyond, it is a place to real discussion and I am sure that the people who have your blog in high consideration are a elite, they are a bit more than the average guy. I felt your blog should have stooped concentrated on the muslim issue and should become pro European in all aspects, with the full notion that the muslims are just a drop in a ocean of big problems that are, nonetheless, addressed at Gates of Vienna. Just not with the primacy I think it deserves.Your blog was and still is among the elite of Conservative European (Western) blogosphere. I fear we will have to wonder for how long it will continue to be a major blog.You must be able to reach the most people possible because what you have done is exceptional. If it implies cut one or another essay, you better do it because I do not want to see Gates of Vienna destroyed. I don’t want to see Gates of Vienna restricted to two or three readers. I get a bit emotional when I think on such an end to my dear ‘Gates.

I was flattered by what you Baron did the first time I posted. Do you remember an essay-comment I made about Benazhir Butho? Probably not… the point being, I was not sure what I thought was worth looking at, I was already a great fan of this blog and I had never commented previously fearing not being capable of keeping the high standards common to this blog, I feared my English or my logic was not good enough to this blog, that I was going to lower the level of the blog. In a way, I read the discussions and essays in your blog like a boy that hears the knowledge of the adults, being incapable of making part of the conversation but absorbing everything what’s said. My comment was a shy one and I was expecting to be ignored. You people didn’t. And a nice discussion aroused. I was very happy feeling that I could in fact contribute to such an excellent blog.

You proposed us, loyal followers of your blog, to contribute with money. 12€ is not much, not even in my almost undeveloped country but the truth is, I can not help you that way. And I would like to contribute to it. I can’t, not because I am all that poor or selfish but because I am only 18 years old, I do not work, I am studding in the local high school, I am probably going to College next year and I hope not to have to work in the next three to four years. I am totally dependent on my parents, economically speaking, and I can not therefore demand them (who do not dream about GoV’s existence and don’t like reading English) to pay for the maintenance of this blog. But don’t get me wrong, I really do want to help you. I was planning to start a blog in my own (in Portuguese and English), with the help of a friend of mine but this project will probably never see the light. However, I have made many translations of interesting essays I found here at Gates of Vienna, Brussels Journal, and especially Fjordman’s essays. I have distribute them (printed) to many friends of mine I have converted to this “political fight” be it Nationalistic, Conservative, I can not really define it. The thing is, I have supplied some friends with good essays and some friends of my friends with the same essays and as so I have created a micro net of knowledge. I think it is my tiny contribution to it. Also, I have given you some alerts though I could have given you much more whereas I look for developments eagerly and daily and know how to find the not so politically correct news. I also do some essays on my own. They are a bit crazy and I don’t show them to anybody. But I think they fit really well. For example, I predicted that Chavez would try to swallow Colombia five months after the incidents along the border. Two weeks earlier (and this I think it is coincidence) I was openly saying to some of my friends that “sh*it would happen in Colombia”, now, some of them nicknamed me the Messiah. I have predicted many things that had happened in my essays and some that had not. I usually write one for month or so, and if you wanted, I would very much be pleased to give my little contribution to Gates of Vienna. Unfortunately, some fifth of my essays are a bit too metaphysical and I think those wouldn’t fit at GoV, despite the fact that some readers would certainly find them amusing.Also, I’ve noticed how you say you’re focused in “Europe”. I do not agree. I don’t doubt you make efforts in that direction but the truth is that you are too focused in North Western Europe. As a person living in South Western Europe, I would be glad if I could be a “little reporter of Gates of Vienna” in this little corner of the world. Only if you want me to do that, of course. But I may be able to support Gates of Vienna that way.

I am not an expert and all this is for me a hobby, my principal hobby after football (the European variation), girls, friends, and another couple of things I will not mention. I can only contribute in that base, money is out of question, and I am deeply sorry for that. Anyway, it would be a pleasure to contribute to this great blog in a serious way, if you want me to.

I will now briefly explain how I have “awakened” being so young. I was brought as a leftist but I always had a fascination for History and regarded my country as somehow better (based in the past and the present) than others, even the majority of European countries. I was also instinctively Eurocentric despite the fact that I was always educated in a multicultural fashion where every culture has equal value. I have also always lived in a multiethnic area, and I have had friends from many ethnicities. The developments on 9/11 made me realise, with 12 years old, that History is not in the books, we can make History happen, and History was being made live into my living room. Though I was relatively naïve then, I would start wondering why many friends of mine were gradually becoming behind, living a life inclined towards crime, with no success available for them and why they were poorer and less educated than others. Those were 90% of my African friends. I started noticing ethnic differences and how some Orientals were so “culturally different” from the mainstream and so working oriented. Then, another thing happened; I started noticing that “white Europeans” had made Europe, America and all the great cities in Africa except those on Egypt and the Maghreb; the same to Australia and New Zeeland. I found also that the Chinese looking peoples were too poor and that they thought so differently from Europeans. I noticed that Indians were also poor. And that the muslims were sand wondering vicious people who had conquered my grandparents long ago and were kicked in the ass so, they are not that good after all. By reading History books and encyclopaedias and seeing some History Channel and documentaries, when I was fourteen, my understanding of “all cultures having equal value” vanished, and I felt everybody around me was lying. Now I know they were being Politically Correct. After that, I noticed how the violent thugs and robbers in school, how the bad educated and even, the stupidest people in school were so overrepresented by some ethnicities: Africans and Gypsies especially. My instinctive Euro-centrism was reinforced and stopped being merely instinctive. Though, I was a supporter of multiculturalism and relatively leftie. I would turn to the right decisively due to two reasons and all I said earlier becoming more and more evident as the time goes by (example: I was always in the public school. In the first grade we had a class that was some 30% non European, in the ninth grade, non Europeans were only 5% and half of them were “Asians” that are over represented). One of the incidents was a football game, Portugal vs Angola. Portugal won, of course, but the Angolan players behaved nastily in such a friendly game. They attacked viciously the Portuguese players and they attacks appeared to be especially directed to the two white thirds of the Portuguese football team. Worst, all blacks here, independently of their own country, were supporting Angola, many of who were born here and were considered, at least for me, as “normal Portuguese” persons, just with a darker colour. Many of the blacks stated clearly that that kind of violence was okay because it was a révanche for the colonisation. Knowing many Portuguese people, including my mother’s family, who had lost everything in the colonial wars and were forced to live the land in which they were born (many were there for more than one generation) under risk of being killed, and being aware of how the blacks here are privileged in comparison to those in Africa, I was revolted by such actions. And I was starting to wonder that those people can never be really Portuguese. It was confirmed when I heard that because of the game there were little race riots with Africans attacking Portuguese people near predominantly black neighbourhoods (little “bidon villes”) and near “African” bars and discos. There was also a rumour that a girl was raped because of that, I was not able to hear that again to confirm it but my belief in a multicultural/multiracial nation was destroyed. The second event was that I knew a friend (inoffensive) that liked to play as a Nazi/Fascist and as a Communist. The problem was that, when he was talking about immigration, talking about how Europe is being colonised and playing around with stuff like that, and other dirtier things, he opened my eyes to some pretty dark issues, and after some investigation, I was convicted that his jokes were sad truths in some things. And then I found Gates of Vienna, and became a great fan. I read this blog almost daily for more than year and it is just spectacular.

That’s how an eighteen years old boy becomes interested in Gates of Vienna, and tries to understand the world. My immaturity has been shown is some comments of mine and I am sorry for that. I can not help Gates of Vienna, I may be able to help it in other ways. If you Baron or Dymphna think I may be useful to Gates of Vienna and you want me to become more involved in this blog I would once more be flattered and pleased by helping such a noble cause. The email in my comments is fake but if you want to contact me, I could give you my real email. Also, I will be waiting for an answer to this comment in the comment’s section and it will definitely be appreciated. I hope Gates of Vienna to be around for many, many more years.Thank you, Afonso Henriques

[quote: yggdrasil]"..If you see Socrates framed by the other sources we have to the political life of ancient Greece - for me it is quite clear that he must have been the very symbol of democracy. There were two disciples of Socrates; Diogenes and Plato - they each symbolized facets of his teaching. Diogenes lived in barrel, to be free and able to say whatever he wanted. If he was inspired by Socrates to this - then how could Socrates not be a symbol of free speech???.."

Well, Diogenes' "philosophy" had precious little to do with free speech, but with "épater le bourgeois". He was the first famous anarchist bum, so to speak. Remember that both Plato and Socrates had a firm dislike of democracy and ordinary people.

When Athens lost the war, collectivist, totalitarian Sparta installed a dictatorial puppet "government" of 30 Tyrants, just five years before the trial against Socrates. And would you know it? Two of Socrates' most favorite pupils, Alcibiades and Critias, "progressive", "Socratified" sons (as Aristophanes would refer to these dandy kids) from the rich elites, where part of the most bloody political regime Athens had ever witnessed. Two of the 30 Tyrants were family of Plato, by the way.

In Xenophon's Memorabilia you may read more of the charge against Socrates that Plato so superbly covered: Socrates indoctrinated his aristocratic pupils against the institutions of democracy and taught them elitist disrespect of ancestral laws. "it is the business of the ruler to give orders and of the ruled to obey." Spoken like a true Spartan. What Socrates wanted was rule by an expert elite. Like the socialists of sorts, during the 19th/20th century.

The fostering of anti-democratic sentiments is still remembered and used in a speech by Aeschines, 50 years after the trial against Socrates: "..you executed Socrates, the sophist, because he was clearly responsible for the education of Critias, one of the thirty anti-democratic leaders."

You're right about the few sources whe have on Socrates. Almost exclusively from the entourage of Socrates/Plato himself, although Xenophon gives away much more about the collectivist, elitist and anti-democratic motives of the two. Everything there is to know about Socrates and Plato squarely disqualifies both as champions of free speech. Of course you might still disagree, but then you also might as well include someone like Tariq Ramadan on that same list of champions ;-)

I just hit your tipjar, finally. I'd been meaning to do it for awhile anyway, but my natural tendencies towards procrastination and outright stinginess had heretofore precluded that.

I read El Inglés' post over the weekend and I thought it was excellent. It was dispassionate and relentlessly logical. I'd love to see some of the nay-sayers and name-callers try to refute his conclusions. Assuming they even read it in the first place.

I knew you were young, but I had no idea you were that young! Congratulations on your command of English; it is very good.

I remember very well your comment about Pakistan that I took and made into an essay. I would like to see more material from you, preferably medium-length pieces about Portugal, Angola, Brazil, or other parts of the past or present Portuguese diaspora.

I prefer articles that are factual and well-sourced with links, and not opinion pieces (not yet, anyway). I'll do the editing.

I don't promise to post everything you send -- I need to see what you can do, then I'll tell you.

wormwood,You read my mind, as I was digging up some things by Mark Steyn, regarding the death of Russia. I heard him on the radio being interviewed by Michael Medved a few weeks ago, and he stated that 70% of all pregnancies in Russia are aborted. I found one link from free republic that sites a piece he wrote.

The Death of Mother Russia."Russia is literally dying. From a population peak in 1992 of 148 million, it will be down to below 130 million by 2015 and thereafter dropping to perhaps 50 or 60 million by the end of the century, a third of what it was at the fall of the Soviet Union. It needn’t decline at a consistent rate, of course. But I’d say it’s more likely to be even lower than 50 million than it is to be over 100 million. The longer Russia goes without arresting the death spiral, the harder it is to pull out of it, and when it comes to the future most Russian women are voting with their foetus: 70 per cent of pregnancies are aborted.---------------Russia is the sick man of Europe, and would still look pretty sick if you moved him to Africa. It has the fastest-growing rate of HIV infection in the world. From virtually no official Aids cases at the time Putin took office, in the last five years more Russians have tested positive than in the previous 20 for America. The virus is said to have infected at least 1 per cent of the population, the figure the World Health Organisation considers the tipping point for a sub-Saharan-sized epidemic. So at a time when Russian men already have a life expectancy in the mid-50s — lower than in Bangladesh — they’re about to see Aids cut them down from the other end, killing young men and women of childbearing age, and with them any hope of societal regeneration. By 2010, Aids will be killing between a quarter and three-quarters of a million Russians every year. It will become a nation of babushkas, unable to muster enough young soldiers to secure its borders, enough young businessmen to secure its economy or enough young families to secure its future. True, there are regions that are exceptions to these malign trends, parts of Russia that have healthy fertility rates and low HIV infection. Can you guess which regions they are? They start with a ‘Mu-’ and end with a ‘-slim’."

""Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?

Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans--and mostly red-state Americans.

As fertility shrivels, societies get older--and Japan and much of Europe are set to get older than any functioning societies have ever been. And we know what comes after old age. These countries are going out of business--unless they can find the will to change their ways. Is that likely? I don't think so."

In his analysis, I don't see Russia, as we know it now, as existing in the near future, and having nothing beneficial to offer Europe, other than oil and gas. It should be noted that Russia and China do belong to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, along with four "stans," with Iran trying to join. This organization was formed as a counter to NATO. I view Russia as more of a threat to international peace and prosperity, than as a guardian or savior for any European states.

Regarding Russia: I believe that in the future China will "acquire" much of current Russia for its natural resources. Who are <100 Million to argue with ~1 Billion? Russia won't have the manpower to fight back and so will cede its territory with little if any fight, not willing to risk halving its already shrinking population.

And 100 million more Americans doesn't mean much if they are primarily the progeny of our new 3rd world immigrant masses and not educated about and taught respect for Western culture.

No Western government will carry out assassinations of Islamic leaders. There is simply no longer the will among those that enter the political classes for strong, decisive action. Politicians in a modern democracy are always concerned about the next election and thus refuse to make the hard choices necessary for the long term continuity of nations. Politicians also live in fear of being vilified in the press and by the Left. If Churchill were in office today he would probably have been hounded into early retirement by the Liberal elites and their MSM water carriers.There is an appalling lack of courage in the political class. Geert Wilders is a rare exception.

No, if the necessary actions are to be carried out they will have to be done by patriots whose love of country, culture, and civilization outweigh their fear of prison or death.

I don't think it will take the elimination of very many people for the powder keg to explode.

Russia is doing classical foreign policy, wielding whatever tools she has at her disposal, and doing that in the interest of .. Russia.

Our compromise-drunken EU politicians, who hold offices too high for their capabilities, simply have forgotten what it means to stand for their countries. Compromise is encouraged, standing firm strongly discouraged, in the European Union.

That strategy works, but only to a limit. Watch also how they're being systematically cheated by Turkey...

Also, watch how NATO is being expanded to indemnify Russia. That is not very meaningful. Russia, while being undemocratic, is not an enemy of the West. I recommend traveling there.

The real enemy, the one we should focus on, is a tad further to the south. If we had courage, we'd fix our energy supply challenges and focus on the enemy that our 'leaders' hardly dare to name.

A few years ago I started thinking I was one of the "wise ones" commenting on a blog, and in one week I posted several mildly Troll-like "grenades" under a faked name, just to stir things up. A few days later, my posting privileges suddenly evaporated.

I was devastated. Sick with guilt and shame. I wrote a grovelling note to the owner / host of the blog, apologizing for my sin, and expressing the hope that one day I would be able to restore myself to his good graces.

Turned out it was just a glitch in his blog's security settings.

But I mended my ways. No more fake posts for me!

It was a real wake-up though, to realize just how much I'd come to depend on the extended conversations and REAL EXCHANGES with other commenters for mental stimulation and nourishment.

Meanwhile...

Thanks, Dymphna and Baron B!

Your blog has been a window on the world giving a comprehensive view unavailable anywhere else. When the mainstream alleged news media were busy ignoring the rioting in Denmark and France, Gates of Vienna was a blessed connection to reality. Jamaat al Fuqrah. The Islamic enclaves trampling on the Swedes; The Islamic enclaves trampling on the Finns; The Islamic enclaves trampling on the Norwegians; The Islamic enclaves trampling on the Danes; The ... well, you get the picture.

Nowhere else have I seen the careful documentation of challenges as you have done. You have detailed how the cradle-to-grave socialist delusion has changed countries that used to be the most vibrant and self-sufficient, into pathetic losers, winos sleeping in their own urine. They can pay their bills only by importing laborers whose most striking qualification was their initial eagerness to work for wages sneered at by native citizens.

(In other words, it's not just that Islam is Jihadist, but that many of the crumbling Western Socialist cultures have committed themselves to suicide anyway, and the Muslims are merely helping speed them on their way.)

Boy! The stinking bastards who chose journalism majors since Watergate have turned out to be a bunch of worthless turds, who don't give a crap about actually looking or sharing information the public needs in order to make decisions, like whether to lock the doors, lock & load, or say a final prayer.

I'd contribute in a second, but my unemployment benefits just ran out.

Always a pleasure to discuss philosophy with someone who actually know something.

I however very much disagree, off cause :-)

Henrik:

It was quite a challenge to the early European scientists (Age of Reason) to get away from this yoke.

Well they called it a renaessance - a rebirth of the classics. So they must have had some use of the classics.

Sagunto:

You've probably heard of Averroës. He and his followers were doctrinaire Aristotelians -proclaiming that his physics was complete and infallible. So much for science in Islam, which never had a chance anyway, not even with this scholar.Knowledge, yes some; but science? No. On a wider note: perhaps you confuse science with technology?

Well Aristotle wrote numerous volumes, it is true that the scholastics took the book Analytica to an extreme. And some of the other books as well. But you cannot judge Aristotle on the scholastics. The result of working with Aristotle depends on the philosopher and the time. Take Hegel, he fell in love with Aristotles book On the Soul, combined it with the book Politics, and created a foundation to the national state. That is just another application. And actually the Catholic churchstate is Platonic, not Aristotelean. It is a philosopher state.

Well, then what is science? VERY hard question to answer. Basically i suppose it depends on the specific science - each science has its own methods depending on subject and tradition. There are, however certain basic rules you can apply to science; logic, reason and the search for truth. I personally think science is the production of good knowledge - and this happened in the ancient time.

Sagunto:

You're right about the few sources whe have on Socrates. Almost exclusively from the entourage of Socrates/Plato himself, although Xenophon gives away much more about the collectivist, elitist and anti-democratic motives of the two.

Well then let us hear it from Plato/Socrates himself, then you can judge it yourself:

"For if you kill me you will not easely find another like me, who, if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, I am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by the God; and the state is like a great and noble steed who is tardy in its motion owing to its very size, and requires to be stirred to life. I am that gadfly which God has given the state, and all day long and in all places I am always fastening upon you, arousing, persuading and reproaching you"

Now you may belive you later source, or believe this. This is written not long after the death of Socrates, by someone who knew him very well.

Well they called it a renaessance - a rebirth of the classics. So they must have had some use of the classics.

Ehm, the Renaessance was _before_ the Age of Reason. Like 2 centuries...

Rodney Stark, in his wonderful book The Victory of Reason, explains the details. The nascent scientists of the Age of Reason / Enligthenment were forced to pay lip service to the Greek scientist, while inventing the modern approach of setting observation above theory, and focusing on theories that can, in principle, be falsified. Sounds weird, perhaps, but it's documentable.

Eatyourbeans:A resurgent, Orthodox,Christian and great Russia is wonderful news.

I agree on that, and straight out dismiss those who want to reignite the Cold War. A reported 2 million Russians have converted from Islam to Christianity, and conversion remains one of the greatest tools in our box, also in Iran, Turkey and other places.

Which is a reason I recommend people to read Rodney Stark, Thomas E. Woods Jr. and others who move away from nihilistic modernism into an appreciation of our cultural roots. European culture just has so much to offer...

I have not read the book, looks intereresting - but usually "the age of reason" refers to the time after the french revolution. The French revolution was a rennaesance - take Voltaire who quoted Socrates quite a lot.

Rebirth of the classics is a tradition that has happened quite frequently in Europe. I personally think, that our danish "golden age" was a rennaessance. It also happened in France year 800, Holland year 1500, Italy year 1500, France year 1700.

The US were more or less build upon the french reneassance, very lucky for them.

ole: To kill terrorist leaders is something that doesn't need any further justification. The very fact that it CAN be done makes it an obligation for any government who tries to keep the respect of its citizens.

Splendidly well-put.

We should not underestimate the ability of terrorist organisations to replace their leadership. In some ocations it might even be true, that we helped them to get rid of "dead wood" , and thereby made it possible for younger, even more brutal members to rise up through the ranks.

Due to the high context nature of Islamic culture, high-ranking officials more often than not manage irreplaceable contact networks and financial “credit lines” that younger bucks simply do not possess. Admittedly, senior terrorists tend to display careerist tendencies—usually manifested as risk-aversion—but that does not change the more developed nature of their operational infrastructure.

Decapitating strikes is mostly a good thing, because it is better than nothing.

Once again, I’ll quote Belmont Club’s Wretchard:

The Israeli strike against the terrorist top tier exploits the weakness inherent in terrorist organizations which are unstable alliances based on a delicate balance of internal intimidation. None of them, the Palestinian Authority included, are either transparent or accountable. They are exceptionally vulnerable to changes in their leadership. They can stand the loss of any number of teenage fighters or youthful suicide bombers without much damage but are rocked -- as Yassin's death illustrates -- by death at the top.

I suppose now would be a good time to post an essay on the difference between high context (Asiatic) cultures and low context (Western) cultures. Far too many people are not aware of this fundamental distinction that drives much of what we perceive as alien about Islam and “inscrutable” about other Asian cultures. I’ve got a piece cobbled up that I’ll submit to the Baron for his consideration. It would certainly go a long way towards helping people understand just why the stark assessments made by El Inglés were so very much on the money.

dt: I wasn't referring to a "Top Down attrition of Islam’s command structure" resulting from any military operation. No question that strategy works. But in order for that plan to work, a threat has to be acknowledged and acted upon with the intention of eliminating that threat.

Fear not, you weren’t unclear. I took your reference and ran with it to my favorite goal post. You are absolutely right about how “a threat has to be acknowledged and acted upon with the intention of eliminating that threat”. Instead we are treated to the gruesome spectacle that Srdja Trifkovic describes thusly:

The elite class has every intention of continuing to “fight” the war on terrorism without naming the enemy, without revealing his beliefs, without unmasking his intentions, without offending his accomplices, without expelling his fifth columnists, and without ever daring to win. Their crime can and must be stopped. The founders of the United States overthrew the colonial government for offenses far lighter than those of which the traitor class is guilty.[emphasis added]

Caving to Muslim pressure groups, the Bush administration has banned the term "jihadist" to define the enemy. Islamic terrorists will now be known as "violent extremists."

Our war on radical Islam has been hamstrung by political correctness from the start. First, we couldn't call the campaign to strike back at al-Qaida a "crusade" because Muslims found it historically offensive.

Then we couldn't define the enemy as "Islamic terrorists" because it insulted Islam — even though it accurately described the Muslims committing murder and mayhem in the name of Islam.To appease critics, we narrowed the terminology, confining it to the jihadist element within Islam. And so officials in recent years have frequently referred to "jihad" or "jihadists" in public.

Only now they can't describe terrorists as "jihadists," either, because Muslim leaders complain that it, too, gives Islam a bad name. But jihad, or holy war, is a central tenet of the faith. In fact, jihad is often referred to as the "sixth pillar of Islam."

Even "mujahedeen," or Islamic freedom fighter, is a no-no in the new watered-down Washington lexicon. And "Islamofascism" is definitely out.

All this is in a memo circulating among federal agencies.

So much for any hope we might have had of identifying or acknowledging a threat.

The top, and by that I mean our elected officials, will not acknowledge the presence of Muslims intent on imposing sharia as a threat. Rather, these officials consider the only threat to be the result of European (or here in the US, American) racism, xenophobia or intolerance. It is that attitude, shared by those at the top of our political system that I referred to. It is that attitude that will not change until those of us here on the ground make them change.

Again, you were clear, and you bear out the observations of El Inglés rather well regarding how things “will not change until those of us here on the ground make them change”. I fear that the changes you refer to are the “discontinuities” being predicted by El Inglés.

eatyourbeans: … dismissing Russia as USSR Lite, a KGB kleptocracy, etc, etc, is in my opinion somewhat lazy and unimaginative. I think that Russia fell to the bottom of hell in the last century and now she is slowly climbing out of it.

By what indicators do you judge Russia to be “climbing out of it”? Russia is currently # 196 out of 223 nations in terms of population replacement rate with a grim ranking of 1.4 compared to the minimum of 2.1 required for mere survival. The USA currently stands at a minimal 2.1, well ahead of Europe’s dismal 1.5 or China’s marginal 1.75. Russia’s low fertility is paired with some of the world’s highest rates for alcoholism and homicide. It is predicted that by 2010 Russia’s AIDS infection rate will reach 10% where some 80% of new cases are attributed to the use of injected drugs. Add in Russia’s 6.6% unemployment rate, as compared to America’s 4.4% and things get even less happy. Altogether, not a very pretty picture.

Also, a substantial portion of Russia’s economic growth is in the domestic services sector, which does not necessarily translate into robust overall GDP performance. Moreover, Russia’s heavy reliance upon fuel exports makes them vulnerable to the exact same alternative energy strategies being driven by extortionate MME (Muslim Middle East) petroleum prices. Be it ironic, coincidental or by dint of sheer poetic justice, Russia’s triangulation against Western interests—through its support of terrorist regimes, Islamic or otherwise—increasingly pairs its national objectives with those of the MME tyrannies. By hitching their post-Soviet wagon to Islam’s moon and star, Russia has only entrenched much of—what might otherwise have been—outdated Cold War thinking and the strategic models related thereto. It makes all the more clear a truly disturbing connection between Russia and Islamic terrorism that Beslan, the Nord-Ost theatre siege plus other plane, subway and apartment block bombings.

Look on the bright side. Russia has shown herself more than willing to kick moslem ass, as the islamicists of Grozny found out. So your trains and subways would be safe again.

Bull’s pizzle! Putin has been working both side of the Western-Islamic street like a jonesing crack-whore and we’d damn well better pay close attention to what’s in store. Iran’s nuclear weapons R&D program would be nowhere without Russian assistance. Do you disagree?

French Revolution? Sounds more like fascism than like reason to me... Regime of Terror and the like.

A quip more on Russia: I think they're being fairly pragmatic, Putin and all his cronies. The rumours that he's made himself rich is much to my dislike, though.

But I think Putin made a very strong statement to the Islamic separatists, something which indirectly weakens Islam significantly in Russia. Separatism is a hallmark of Islam. When that falls, the power of Islam withers.

Yes, the Italian elections were remarkable: in one fell swoop we got rid of all the Marxists, Greens and Moonbats; then without an electoral reform, we switched from a plethora of "partitini" to a bi-party system (something which made us proud "other people" and no longer just risible Italians); and then, through a "sanctifying" alliance with Berlusconi, the anti-immigration Northern League had a huge whopping victory in the North (and believe it or not, also on a small Island off Sicily - so we still are both remarkable and risible Italians after all), and the ex-Fascist rightwingers did well elsewhere (Rome's new Mayor for instance - who according to reports, even wears the dreaded Celtic Cross of Instant Lizaroid Derangement around his neck).

A new and unique Italian pasticcio with enough seats to last a full five years: a coalition of the national, the regional and the personal.

The "confessional" instead, (the Christian Democrats) managed to get a tiny presence in Parliament, but having refused to pre-join the Berlusconi coalition, are now left in purgatory to rue over their insignificance (a fitting place for Italian Christian Democrats after decades of power).

The loser, Veltroni of the Partito Democratico (in cahoots with the small party of the ex-Clean Hands Judge and the Libertarian Radicals) might even be considered one of the winners. Now with Berlusconi there will be an electoral reform ensuring hard times for all his potential adversaries further to the left. (The "Veltrusconi" arrangement).

Naturally, what's really interesting here at GoV is the main-streaming of the Lega North, the party of Calderoli, the guy who sent pigs running over the ground where the Muslims intended to build a mosque... the party that demands local plebicites for mosque constructions... This party now has a controlling share of the government. In theory they could make Berlusconi fall. Though of course pushing their regionalist agenda, the Bossi gang, however, is deeply grateful to Berlusconi. One of their deputies, Roberto Maroni, (a respected politician) even went on record decribing how Berlusconi had made and won a pre-election bet with him: "join my coalition and you'll double your votes!" "No way!" - "Trust me!" Maroni admitted that he was utterly delighted to lose the bet and dazzled by businessman Berlusconi's political acumen.

Alleanza Nazionale (for the Lizaroid Tyrant the "goose-stepping, skull-cracking genocidal nazi-Fascists") went into the Berlusconi coalition despite a small break-away group to its right (I guess they would be the "ULTRA goose-stepping, skull-cracking genocidal nazi-Faascists") risking a destructive party split. Instead the small group was obliterated and now Rome's Mayor is a fellow called Alemanno, a Fini protogé. In the sixties and seventies such an election of a "fascista" would have caused a street revolution. Yesteraday instead car horns were honking.

Okay all this is local stuff, but the message I didn't even get close to conveying to the Lizaroid King and his Unga-Dunga echo chamber is that despite the unswell Fascist and racist origins of two key parts of the Berlusconi coalition, they've come a long way... and a country like Israel rejoiced because the first Hebrew speaking deputy was elected: the wonderful and brilliant journalist Fiamma Nirenstein, once a Kibbutz leftwinger who one fine day discovered that among her Italian Communist comrades she had become a filthy genocidal Jew. By degrees Fiamnma moved to the right and found her political home with Berlusconi (personal), Fini (national) and Bossi (regional). I particularly like her because she, already a big-time journalist, once intervened (in my favor) in a debate at the La Stampa forum where I had gone jihading. She just popped in and described how her wonderful, absolutely sweet and loveable Muslim Arab fruit seller in Israel sent his kids to a Hamas madrassa school. (The utter madness of Islam). Anyway that's just a petite personal satisfaction. Howver, here at GoV I say remember the name "Fiamma Nirenstein"... I'm sure we'll be hearing more about her.

So Israel rejoices but the Lizaroid King sees instant Auschwitz. He can't even feel a twinge of solidarity with Brigitte Bardot. He's warning the world about an enemy whose clerics, whose men of God preach and PRACTICE genocide, but he's too politically squeamish to sit at the same table with the likes of Vlaams. And meanwhile... in Italy a Vlaams-like party (the Lega) with Alleanza Nazionale (reformed fascists) and Berlusconi have Israel cheering (no more of ex foreign minister D'Alema's visits of solidarity to Hamas).

Well I give up and Bilgeman's got Charles Johnson described better than I ever could.

That's no scholarly talk of mine, it's just snobbery, you know.. use some outdated verbiage, throw in a little French now and then et voilà!Anyway, sorry 'bout the scholarly outlook; I wasn't happy with it either. Actually my first impulse was to send in a rap about the subject ;-) But only just before I hit the orange "Publish" butt', I realized that I only rap in Dutch, en dus kon ik die snelle rauwe shit hiero niet gaan lopen dissen, weet je? In English: that wasn't a good idea.

Hence the pseudo-scholarly lingo.

I'd really like to endorse the two books that Henrik recommends. The works by Régine Pernoud about the Middle Ages and the renaissance are also highly recommended. For the history of science I'd still advise Lindberg (1992): The beginnings of Western Science.

People who bragged about "science" and "Scientific Revolutions" (here the natural sciences are meant), like Voltaire and his cheerleaders, were nothing near the semblance of a scientist themselves, but men of letters and political revolutionaries. "Enlightenment" and "Dark Ages" were labels coined by men who wished to discredit religion and especially the Roman Catholic Church. The so-called "Scientific Revolution" is another of their concepts, but none of these men had played any significant part in the scientific endeavour.

I don't mind a bit of snobbery. Modern 'art' has this tendency to go lower than low anyway, so just for kicks it's good to go the opposite way.

Browsing at my favorite online bookstore, I find that there's a new edition of the Lindberg book out just two weeks ago :)

The Régine Pernoud book I'll grab also. It underlines what I've said frequently, that comparing Islam to the Middle Ages is very offensive. To the Middle Ages, of course, which among many other good things gave us these amazing cathedrals...

I'm on vacation this week, and have to say that I've been spending an inordinate amount of time reading the current articles, as well as older ones here on GoV. As a Lizardoid (not banned yet, though I did get a short ban because I dared defend the Netherlands and our efforts to slow/stop immigration here), I can't help but compare the levels of articles, as well as comments on the two sites.

" Truly tiny nations, like Luxemburg or Portugal, would have a tough time going it alone. There would be a lot of pressure to confederate in defense against the Muslim foe. Balkanization plays too much into Islam’s hands for it to be the best outcome."

We are used to it. The truth is that Europe has Hitorically been Balkanised.During the Reconquista, for example, there were many tiny Christian kingdoms who fought each other constantly: León, Portugal, Castille, Aragón, Navarra, or een Asturias and Galicia. The point was that there was a kind of silent brotherhood among them. They knew the enemy was the moor and that those fights were fights among brothers in order to get the biggest piece of the pie.It was particular clear in this:Among the nobel muslim families, to dispose Christian girls, or to demand some given quantity of Christian girls for a period of time (like Mnotaurus) was the rule. Actually, right in 711 whrn they first arrived, they killed the Germanic Visigothic king and the most powerfull muslim married with the King's widow. That never happened among the Christian. Being all that kin on muslim grls despite the fact that trough all the Peninsula, legends presist in whiich ghosts of arabic dressing, extremingly dark haired and black eyed, incredibly beautifull muslim girls appear at midnight and seduce the men who pass through some caves that are hunted. Those "enchanted moors" usually have tones of gold with them. Once the men is seduced, nobody ever see him again. The pont being, nobel Christians did not looked to muslim women to marriege, they would prefer even Continental European nobel women. Why is that? In such a Balkanized Europe? A sense of brotherhood, I suppose.

Another great example was the Balkanized Celrts of Vercigetorix, Viriato ot (I guess) Buodicca or Brittania (I am really not sure) that rapidly unify against the romans invaders.

To another level. Three great enemies join in to fight a foreign enemy:The Huns were beaten in the Catalunic Camps by a coalition of Romans, Celtic and Germanic tribes. Being the three enemies among each other.

Balkanization is not a great problem if we know who our friendes are.

Also, I don't think Russia is as much Anti-American as America is anti-Russia. And what America has been doing to Russia, makes Russian anti-americanism be aceptable, to say the least. Are you familiar with what is happening in Georgia right now? The one in the Caucasus. Also, I prefer to see the European nukes in Russian hands than in muslim hands. You would see how silly this comparison is if you were living in Europe. Actually I fear more for the French nukes than the Russian ones...

To the ones who said that Plato was not Western because he was a bloody pagan who had different opinions concearning the actual state of affairs in Europe. I will not common, I will just say that he is much more Western than any f us here and that the "Western vallues" are caractherized by the search of perfection. Being it Communism, the Inquisiton, Colonsation, Nazi efforts into the creation of a Master Race or this filthy European Union. All this are all Western vallues going mad.

Truly tiny nations, like Luxemburg or Portugal, would have a tough time going it alone.

Like, ehm, Denmark?

Smaller nation-states leaves us with greater freedom to be diverse, do interesting things, and challenge the status quo. Apart from the Motoons, we also happen to be leaders in wind industry, and in challenging the EU.

That's mainly because we're too small to bother with. There's little honour in crusing an enemy as small as Denmark :)

"what would the US do? If states - Serbia is the prime example, Greece is along, others may follow - percieve US policy to be cynical and against their interests, why not turn to Russia?"

My friend, it is already happening. In Europe, the Baltic states are part of Nato and the European Union. Though, a great part of the population is Russian in those states. This states have made clear they want to clear up their Communist past (as Russia)but they do it in an offensive way towards Russians. They are actually destroying statues of great Communist war heroes, and some are even praising Nazi warriors on the Eastern Front as well as The Teutonic Knights Order to show that they would be better incorporated in a Germanic state than in a Russian one. They do it, but the Russians reply. Than mob violence happens. Two days ago a Russian was killed in Estonia for something similar. Russia's relations to this states is not for the better. To the South, Bielorrussia is a Russian state all together in any way possible. Even so, Russians make all they can to imprision this country towards Russia. In Ukraine, I think we all know what is happening. In the Balkans, idem.In the Caucasus, in Northern Georgia two (legitimate) break away republics have cryed for Russian anexation or/and help: The Abekhazia and the South Ossetia. The Georgian-Russian relations are tense. In almost central Europe, Moldova's break away republic of Transinistra, populated mainly by Russians and Ukrainians demands independence or anezation to Russia. Armenia, again in the caucasus, has no strong allies, surrounded by powerfull muslim nations: Iran, Turkey and Azerbaijan, Russia seems to be the only viable protector.

And how does America responds to these Russian rfforts to save the West and strenghten Russia? Playing around, with their anti-Russia"nism" as if the Cold War had not ended. Trying to implement systems of missiles directed to Russia, excuse me, Iran, in central Europe...

George Soros, who happily buys into various revolutions, is a big and unpredictable factor here. He empowers various young and idealistic people who'd otherwise just be fringe groups. I'm not sure that's for the better, not at all.

I think we should trust the Russians more than we do, and the Islamic countries (like Libya!) less than we do.

If anyone gets the chance to travel in Russia, I sincerely recommend it, preferably a bit wide and far with good company. I did that a few years ago and that gave me a lot of interesting impressions. The analytical stuff one can get over the Internet, but actually being there gives something else, something I just can't put into words.

I forgot to put irony signals at my "snobbery" remark ;-)Thom Woods opens up lots of possibilities to venture beyond long established myths. Chief among them, the laughable Weberian myth of the foudations of free market economy. Woods is linked with Hayek and Von Mises, i.e. the Austrian School of Economics (Acton Institute). Schumpeter is recommended reading and Murray Rothbard. Of course Adam Smith isn't the father of free market economy, as anyone who reads his work on the proto-Marxist labour theory of value is bound to discover. Full blown capitalist markets, enterprises, and what have you were up and running in medieval Italy (and later in more Northern catholic cities, like those in Flanders, Holland, and England). I believe some of this is also covered by Stark.

About small nations: I sympathize of course, though as citizen of the republic of Amsterdam, I don't even consider the Netherlands as a "nation". This instinct for decentralization is common among most Dutchies and that will shape the spirit of any authentic Counterjihad over here. People will defend what they love and honour. And deep loyalties are local, not national over here. It is always the leftist thing to do: rabble on about "the nation" and such, at least in Holland. Dutch still define themselves as Friezen, Brabanders, Hollanders, Twentenaren et cetera. Any successful counterjihad must rely on those traditional loyalties, not on some abstract notion of "defending the great nation of the Netherlands". That, to most of us, simply sounds preposterous. To people living in societies where power traditionally was much more centralized, like France, such grand statements might sound normal, but in Holland it sounds funny and grandiose.

I always feel inclined over here to stress the importance to zoom in on the true foundations of day-to-day resistance against islamization. There is and has been so much abstract talk of "nations" and coalitions between them (cold-war discourse revived) -people talking as if they were internat. politicians themselves-, maybe many too much talk. I would however applaud creative grassroots alliances between Dutch and Danes for instance ;-)Already made a flag (feb 2006):the DutchMark banner

"And 100 million more Americans doesn't mean much if they are primarily the progeny of our new 3rd world immigrant masses and not educated about and taught respect for Western culture."---Indeed.A Debit, and a Threat,not an asset.

"..There's a distinction between 'nation' and 'state'. Belgium isn't a nation-state, but Flandern would be, for example.."

Agreed. The point still is that "defending the Dutch nation" sounds silly for most of the Dutch, and that should be reminded when the counterjihad in various countries is concerned. Moreover, "nation" in Dutch ("natie", sounds very much like nazi) is completely abstract, as it lacks the ethnic connotation it retains in English. Like in United Nations, to Dutch ears it sounds like an abstract political construct, designed for use by the leftist elites.I love my Flemish friends, but they are very, very different from most of the Dutch, even right across the border. Flanders could be a nation-state in your book and I understand why. Then you could easily put about at least fifteen different Dutch nation-states next to it. Just to underscore the typical Dutch fragmentation. And most would be convinced the units involved are still too big ;-)

Zenster,I have posted a link on several different threads concerning the correct terminology to be used in describing our enemy. That the recent statement from the Bush administration has been so distorted and is now being described as PC, is very troubling. The study of islamic terminology has been ongoing, and put too good use. In the following link, from two years ago, I asked some of my ME friends if the terms were better than "jihad" and they all agreed that the new terms were much more effective and descriptive. I had read accounts that the info in this memo was used to good effect in getting the Awakening Council in Al Anbar to turn on AQ. Words do have meaning.Loosely Interpreted Arabic Terms Can Promote Enemy Ideology.I strongly disagree that this change in terminology is due to fear or PC, but what is needed in time of war, adaptation.

I am not sure that this is such a bad event, Baron/Dymphna. I definitly enjoy a much faster GoV and i think this blog is in a class of its own.

Just a small comparison:This is a typical conversation/'debate' from a Pajamas favorized blog of true antijihadis and defenders of Freedom of Speech. I will let it be up to all you guys to try figure out where such is the usual stuff rather than the exception:

[...]

7. NR PaxCoffee? Check! Internet Connection? Check! Why do I come to this job so early in the morning? Check!

[quote: no2liberals]"..Loosely Interpreted Arabic Terms Can Promote Enemy Ideology.I strongly disagree that this change in terminology is due to fear or PC, but what is needed in time of war, adaptation.."

The right kind of adaptation?In the article -as I understand it, the suggestion is launched that the West should ask Islamic clerics/scholars to correctly describe what constitutes extremists and put the Islamicly Correct label on it. When someone in the West speaks of Bin Laden as a jihadist, that would either be giving too much credit from an Islamic standpoint, or risk estranging traditional "moderate" muslims from the West. Some rationale.

I think everybody (including all Muslims) knows that when Muslim extremists (orthodox revivalists, reformists, whatever..) call for jihad, they don't mean to incite people into an "inner spiritual struggle". The illegitimacy of Bin Laden is that in orthodox Islam, jihad, i.e. holy war to subjugate infidels, is an exclusive duty of the Islamic state. In that sense Al Qaida as a semi-private enterprise, is a genuine product of globalization.

The "adaptive" label suggested in the article, will only reinforce the PC notion already vigorously promoted by Islamist pressuregroups worldwide, that: "Muslim extremism has nothing to do with orthodox Islam". Adopting the "appropriate" Arabic word would inadvertedly amount to something of a whitewash, and only obfuscate the inherent connection between orthodox Islam and the "reformation" i.e. the revivalist purification of its doctrine we have witnessed the bigger part of the past century up 'til now.

In short: A very bad and ill-advised form of linguistic "adaptation" i.m.o., collaboration seems the more fitting description.

Now, I wonder what being 'extreme' in Islam actually means. Reforming it, perhaps? That carries a potential death penalty, which certainly is extreme.

That said, it's worth remembering the distinction between 'Classical' and 'Traditional' Islam. They may sound the same, but there's a difference. 'Traditional' Islam has been softened by centuries of interpretations, Christian influence and pragmatism. Classical Islam is based directly on the scripture.

Some, like Daniel Pipes, seem to hope for a resurgence of Traditional Islam. Given the wide availability of the classical texts, I sincerely doubt that this is feasible.

The distinction surely is worth remembering, though I'd rephrase it somewhat. Perhaps the difference amounts to nothing more than half a banana and a sack of beans, but here goes:

Classical Islam.I'd make that Orthodox Islam, 'cause "classical" can refer to a distinct historical period. Fairly unchanged through the ages. For references, jurisprudence et cetera, call Al-Azhar, Egypt. Orthodox Islam, i.e. all schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the orthodox texts, all mandate violent jihad, i.e. lawful warfare against unbelievers. Westerners often argue that extremism is due to a "literal interpretation" of Islam's holy books. That's a typical benevolent distortion through Christianity, and obviously a false one. The basic and orthodox doctrine is not a question of literalism vs. symbolism, the instructions are what they are: instructions to be applied or not.

Traditional Islam.Typically a notion useful in a Western context, for use by Westerners to ease comparison with Christianity. Traditional Catholics for instance, are "lax" in the sense that they, like most people, don't care much for doctrinal disputes. Their catholicism is more "cultural" than religious, a way to live a good life, the occasional visit to a church and that's about it. Then you have the "traditional" Muslims. Tradition here does not mean a softening by interpretations, 'cause there are virtually none of any practical softening significance. Traditional Muslims are "moderate" insofar as it means that they too are fairly uninformed about the actual doctrine of their religion. (the big difference being the doctrine of course, so there's the incomparability). Many Muslims that first came to the Netherlands for instance, were of this type. Their children/grandchildren in growing numbers now "discover" that their forebears have neglected their "duties" as true, i.e. orthodox Muslims.

The notion of Pipes would be a radical reversal of the usual process in any mainstream religious tradition, i.e. that over time it tends to get less strict, because people in general don't care much for an intense form of religion. People who do, form new sects. But that's all Westerner-talk about religion. Islam is not just religion, and apart from that, it has been notoriously resistant to change throughout history. Any "resurgence" of Islam can only mean exactly what's going on right now: a revival of Orthodox Islam, albeit "adapted" to the sobering fact that as soon as an Islamic government would march for jihad, it would immediately be destroyed by the West. Hence the "private initiatives" by Bin Laden Corp. and others, of course sponsored by the same governments that pose as so-called Western allies.

Now, the theory that postulates equality, that seeks to create a supposed dialogue between on the one hand authentic masterpieces of the past, and on the other the present-day impostures, permits the latter to be extolled as having high artistic value. Contemporary art, which is not art, seeks to give itself artistic legitimacy through a forced confrontation with the greatest masterpieces. It vampirizes them in order to affirm itself as true art. The Jan Fabre exhibit in the Louvre adds nothing to Van Eyck, Memling, Rembrandt or Rubens. It does however bring to Jan Fabre the illusion of conversing on an equal footing with them, the illusion, therefore, of being a great artist.

So, now we are confronted with—not just moral or cultural relativism—but artistic relativism. “If my works can be shown in the same room as the Old Masters, then they must be just as good.” Crikey, the laborious rationalizations needed by these artistic charlatans to qualify their rubbish are hilarious when the crap is unfit to wipe my shoes upon. Why don’t they just infuse their art with real quality, beauty, skill and subtlety? I can only suppose that would blow fuses in the marginally intelligent minds of these post-modern wankers.

Afonso Henriques: Also, I don't think Russia is as much Anti-American as America is anti-Russia. And what America has been doing to Russia, makes Russian anti-americanism be aceptable, to say the least … Also, I prefer to see the European nukes in Russian hands than in muslim hands. You would see how silly this comparison is if you were living in Europe. Actually I fear more for the French nukes than the Russian ones...

America has damn good reason to be anti-Russian. Russia continues to support Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. It sells the most updated radar and air defense technology to Tehran’s mullahs so that they can defend their nuclear weapons program. Russia allows North Korea to way-station air shipments of missile technology to terrorist regimes that might otherwise be intercepted on open waters. In a revival of Cold War practices, Russia has resumed airborne shore patrols of our Pacific coast All of this is done with one exclusive goal in mind” Namely, to continue bleeding America white as we work at suppressing terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

After Beslan, Nord-Ost and numerous other Muslim terrorist attacks, one would think that Russia might have had its fill of Islamic predation. Instead, they continue feeding the crocodile so it has enough strength to savage America’s more useful international policies. It is also quite clear that you do not adequately appreciate just how damaging it would be for European nuclear weapons to fall into Russian hands. Such an event would sufficiently resemble Europe's atomic weapons falling into Islamic hands to where there is little difference.

Have you considered that Russia might hand off one of the European weapons to terrorists for use against America? What then, after we traced the fallout’s isotopic signature and found it to be from the arsenal of our once-ally? Could we retaliate against Europe?

Do you honestly think that Europe would flourish under a smothering Russian umbrella? Look at how many dissenting journalists are being murdered in Russia. Does that sort of circumscribed society appeal to you? Modern day Russia has abandoned far too few of the USSR’s goals and methods to be accepted into polite society. You may wish to reconsider your greater fear of French nuclear weapons. Russian assistance is facilitating Iran’s ability to lob missiles into your little corner of Europe and that should be of great concern to you. Instead, you try to mock my own doubts about the viability of a Russian dominated Europe. If the EU didn’t manage to gut Europe, Russia’s withering embrace surely would.

Just like Denmark. Did you read El Inglés’s “The Danish Civil War”? If you did, then you would already be aware of the enormous infrastructure damage he predicts as citizen militias are forced to take on Muslim insurgents and terrorists.

Smaller nation-states leaves us with greater freedom to be diverse, do interesting things, and challenge the status quo. Apart from the Motoons, we also happen to be leaders in wind industry, and in challenging the EU.

All of which I have noted elsewhere. This in no way changes the fact that small countries will be—simply by dint of smaller militaries—more vulnerable. The EU’s open borders means that Muslims can mobilize to address regional hotspots while the newly installed Big Government™ either withholds logistical aid or openly suppresses anti-Islamic activities. Both scenarios are distinctly possible and do not bode at all well for Denmark or any of Europe’s other small nations. I am not deriding Denmark’s remarkable track record so much as remaining extremely cynical about whose side—and to what extent—the EU will come down in favor of regarding the protection of its own indigenous population.

Afonso Henriques: And how does America responds to these Russian efforts to save the West and strenghten Russia? Playing around, with their anti-Russia"nism" as if the Cold War had not ended. Trying to implement systems of missiles directed to Russia, excuse me, Iran, in central Europe...

Hogwash. America has spent untold millions of dollars on the Nunn-Lugar legislation designed to secure frail post-Soviet security measures for its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons: Some of which were developed in defiance of weapons pacts agreed to by the communists. Russia continues to exhibit all of the same Soviet-era duplicity and treachery, which gives America a host of good reasons not to trust them.

You mention Estonia but carefully neglected to note how Russia’s government unleashed a network assault upon Estonian web resources solely because it’s people no longer felt much gratitude towards communist liberators who subsequently enslaved the tiny Baltic nation under Soviet tyranny for another HALF CENTURY.

Henrik R Clausen:I think we should trust the Russians more than we do, and the Islamic countries (like Libya!) less than we do.

I’ll be happy to once Russia stops enabling terrorist regimes. Until then, they are no better than the Islamic thugs. Russia is doing more to revive the Cold War than any other country on earth. America is well within its rights to implement missile defenses or any other measures required to neutralize Russia’s own strategic forces and the ones they help our enemies to build as well.

Sagunto: The "adaptive" label suggested in the article, will only reinforce the PC notion already vigorously promoted by Islamist pressure groups worldwide, that: "Muslim extremism has nothing to do with orthodox Islam". Adopting the "appropriate" Arabic word would inadvertedly amount to something of a whitewash, and only obfuscate the inherent connection between orthodox Islam and the "reformation" i.e. the revivalist purification of its doctrine we have witnessed the bigger part of the past century up 'til now.

In short: A very bad and ill-advised form of linguistic "adaptation" i.m.o., collaboration seems the more fitting description.

Without having read no2liberals’s link (I’ll do that later today when there’s time), I am obliged to agree with Sagunto’s comment. It’s long past tea to STOP letting Islam dictate terms and vocabulary in this conflict. Muslims have channeled our anti-terrorist efforts into highly constrained venues that have increasingly less and less to do with defeating theocratic Islam. Instead, we are assisting Muslim tyrannies in ridding them of extremists who threaten their grip on power but we do nothing to remedy the overall problem of eradicating political Islam. Most definitely NOT a Good Thing™.

"I love my Flemish friends, but they are very, very different from most of the Dutch, even right across the border. Flanders could be a nation-state in your book and I understand why. Then you could easily put about at least fifteen different Dutch nation-states next to it. Just to underscore the typical Dutch fragmentation. And most would be convinced the units involved are still too big."

This strange, Nordic, blond people...

Here in the South, we are a fifth of a big Peninsula, we created the longest European Colonial Empire standing, from 1415 to 1974.

We had fought the muslims for five hundred years so that we could reach our Southern cost in the Atlantic, where people like us live. Then, we started ro conquer and colonise cities in Northern Morocco.

We expelled the Jews and the Arabs we could because they were "too" different and the pope didn't like them much.

We are a sad and almost (?) non functional Nation because our Natural head, Galicia, is not there since the beggining. When the country proclaimed independence, it was beheaded by the mother of our first King.

We even tried to conquer all the other fifths of the peninsula when we were powerfull enough to destroy Spain (Castilla).

We died and fought in every Spanish and French invasion to this day for our Nation.

Today (and Historically) we are regionally diffrent. Much more than the Netherlands or Denmark can ever be and we have strong regional identities: We have Alentejanos, Minhotos, Lisboenses, Portuenses, Beirãos e Algarvios, we even have people in Islands in the middle of the Atlantic.

But when a person says he/she gives more importance to regional differences or when he/she says that the one is not as "Portuguese" or exclude someone based on the person's region, the person in question is viewd by all others as the worst person in the face of the Earth* as an unscrupulous bastard*

*The only bashing acceptable is the people from the North to say that those imediately to the South are moors or muslims. Especially south of the Tagus river... and even this is highly offensive.

You want to decentralise, we hear still dream with an Empire, the Quinto Império or something... Maybe Rome will live again?

Russia is doing more to revive the Cold War than any other country on earth.

Respectfully, I disagree. I suggest to read up on the Balkans, and the tremendous American / EU goofs down there, to understand just how much we have done to further Islamic terrorism, including 9/11, through our Balkan policies.

Further, we're not only breaking, but downright trashing international law by splitting up Serbia left and right, fudging the Montenegro referendum, breaking UN resolution 1244, and in general not respecting the territorial integrity of Serbia. No wonder they turn to Russia for support...

EU has become a consensus-machine, crushing dissent within the smaller countries. I'm amazed that Serbia still stands up to this. It'll be interesting how it plays out in the elections in two weeks - EU is doing all it can to bribe them to elect a EU-friendly parliament.

For Russia, I don't think it makes _sense_ to be anti-Russian. First, we depend on their oil & gas. That's a very delicate situation. But then, is it the Russians, or the actions of the Russians that are the problem?

I insist it's the latter, like support for Iranian nuclear ambitions. We need to focus on the bad actions, not on who does them. It's better to be against shady Russian nuclear deals than being against Russia as such. Much better :)

Zenster said that we have to "stop letting Islaam dictate the terms and vocabulary of this confict" I like that ,intuitively. But what ,exactly , should it mean? One hard-to-swallow aspect of the conflikt seems to be, that Islaam is BETTER at playing politics than almost anybody else. So, should we try to learn from their bag-of-dirty-tricks , or would that be letting them "dictate the terms"? One relatively easy-to-learn dirty trick is the DUALITY which is one of Islaams most basic themes. A good exable of this is how extremists and "moderates" work together AS A TEAM , as in the "good cob/bad cob routine" Much has been said about the danger of turning into the enmy that you fight ; but this has never actualy happened. Sadly ,I am afraid we will have to learn to play as dirty as the ENEMY does,and then some. A good start might be getting used to that word : E-N-E-M-Y !!

Good point. In my dealings related to Turkey, I noticed that the Turks were systematically being very polite in demanding all the wrong things, while we Europeans were kindof rude shouting for the right thing, like not admitting them to the EU.

Then I decided it was time to learn.

Being tactful is not the same as being insincere, not by a mile. It's a skillful mean to get what you want. And in dealing with Islam, Turkey, civil liberties etc., that's what matter, not who can make the greatest noise in the battlefield.

But I don't think we need to play dirty to win this. OK, in small ways perhaps. But what matters is that we motivate our politicians to, well, even start playing!

That's where I think we have stuff to learn from Russia, too, and from the relentless Turks.

Most of our politicians act like administrators, assuming that the tough and risky things will be done by others, always ready to enter a 'dialogue', find a compromise, give them something that'll settle the matter.

I think few of our EU-infected politicians understand the workings of strategic thinking. Fortunately the few who do (Wilders, for one. Messerschmidt to mention another) are making a world of difference. Can't tell for sure, though :)

So, should we try to learn from their bag-of-dirty-tricks , or would that be letting them "dictate the terms"?

They already are dictating the terms - this is a given! Either we are too "morally superior" to answer to this and face civilizational extinction. Or we answer (given the dictated terms).

The idea that is always put forward -- by destructive socialists, hate-spewing liberals and wimpy neocons; all of them equally immoral and irresponsible -- that acting given the dictated terms would make us like them, is utterly propagandistic and patently false. Even if we'd give our worst, we wouldn't become anything even close to them.

I'm all for the latter. We need to use the terms Jihad, Mujahedeen, Kafir, Shaheed, Taqiaya, Kitman, Dhimmi, Caliphate, Sunna, Umma and all the other interesting works they use to - describe their own ambitions and ideology!

Bush and Blair are just being stupid cowards when they ask us not to - we'll disobey, no problem.

Not a single red or green communist left in parliament after the last election. All these Marie Antoinettes purged by the Italian people. And the new mayor of Rome wearing a Celtic cross -- the symbol of freedom and defiance against "the leather-legginged neocon cop for global political correctness" Charles Johnson. Ain't the Italian people the loveliest of the world right now! I'm inclined to say: We are all Italians! Siamo tutti italiani!

And as any schoolyard bully type, Charles Johnson is inherently weak and cowardly. He hasn't mentioned Italy with a word since the election. He wouldn't dare doing it, since his position is an utterly indefensible one, and it would become painfully clear if Italy would be brought up at LGF. So I figure that from now on he will forever pretend that Italy doesn't exist.

And it's lovely to see Pajamas Media paling into insignificance. These so-called "conservatives" in America have been given McCain for all their sins, and they truly deserve him. While the political landscape is shaping up in Europe, it is disintegrating in America. And this is for the best for all Westerners. America will shape it up too eventually, following in the steps of Europe. The less America leads, and the more they take care of their own country, the better for all of us. The political landscape in America -- where the Democratic "global leftism" is only challenged by the Republican "Invade the world; invite the world" -- will ultimately also be transformed. But it looks like Europe will be leading. Which is good. Which is for the best for all of us.

In America there are only two culturally leftist parties (I consider the Republican party culturally leftist in essence and since its constitution). In Europe there are now good developments in several countries: Denmark, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Norway,... Cultural leftism is on its way out. To paraphrase Churchill: it's just the beginning of the beginning. But things are moving, and that's a start.

Granted: The Russians are brutal bastards; let's take that as a given. But could the brutal bastards be a useful ally?

To return to el I's paper, which started this discussion, there are no pleasant outcomes. We are looking around for the least awful one. And should things go to hell, why shouldn't the native Europeans, having been betrayed and sold out by their own governments, to appeal to a neighboring unashamedly Christian power that hasn't forgotten how to use its fists? Namely, Russia.

Whether Russia would help, and what her price might be, and whether it would be worth paying are good questions. Hopefully, we will discuss the Russian factor more here.

Last time Charles Johnson mentioned Italian politics was here. The article describes Berlusconi as pro-business and pro-U.S. It's clear that Charles is approving of this new government, and this is his latest statement on the issue.

So that means by implication that Charles is approving of Lega Nord, a party that is everything that Vlaams Belang is and more, and that he is approving of the party of the mayor with the Celtic Cross. Charles Johnson actually has no problem with a government with VB-style politicians, Celtic Crosses and crypto-fascists. He thinks it's A-OK and links approvingly to an article describing it as pro-American and pro-business and in opposition to the anti-American socialists. I guess Charles Johnson is just another crypto-fascist after all. He's just too much of a coward to come out of the closet.

Well, I will reply mostly to Zenster and I am going to state only about Russia's role.So Zenster, here we go. I usually agree with what you say but in this regard I think you should try to see this not as an American but in some not passionate fashion, as an independent.

"America has damn good reason to be anti-Russian. Russia continues to support Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons."

And everything starts here isn't it? I will just ask you to make the following exercise. We all know how powerfull the European Union will become after the Lisbon Treaty is in practice. I think it will become graudally more and more powerfull and autoritarian.

Now go get a map of Europe. Now, paint the European Union members with blue; The Russian state as red; and the muslim majority states in Europe as green.

We all know that there is a good relationship between the "greens" and "the blues", as we can see for the Bosnian and "Kosovar" flags.

Now that you've coloured the map what do you see as white? There are three suis generis states: Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova. This states can never join the European Union because they are traditionally Russian Homeland. It would imply many things and I don't want to talk about them, at least for now.

To the West we have the Switzerland's island and Norway. Iceland is an American protectorate anyway... In the Balkans only Serbia has had the gutts to stand strong against the European Union and nonetheless...

You may now understand how threatened Russia is by the blue over the stars team.

Returning to Iran... have you noticed how far Iran is from the U.S.A and how close it is from Russia?

Russia helps Iran knowing perfectingly well that it will be a greater threat if Iran turns pro American. They don't want a strong Iran. They just want an Iran capable of resisting an American invasion, an Iran that will not become an American base dangerously close to Russia.

A nuclear Iran is a much, much greater danger to Russia than to the U.S. or Europe. Please Zenster, do what you seem to be good at and use your logic. It just shows how Russia is desperate... They will not tolerate such a danger near them, they just think it is better than seing the 51st American State imediateley to their's South, in what once was Persia...

" In a revival of Cold War practices, Russia has resumed airborne shore patrols of our Pacific coast All of this is done with one exclusive goal in mind"I heard that American planes were flying over Russia's Far East too. I just don't think president Bush is too worried about it though it is indeed ban neighbouring.

"one would think that Russia might have had its fill of Islamic predation." Russians have suffered more than the average Westerner.

"Instead, they continue feeding the crocodile so it has enough strength to savage America’s more useful international policies."

They say the same about you. And I am start to thinking that it is a vicious cycle.

"European nuclear weapons to fall into Russian hands. Such an event would sufficiently resemble Europe's atomic weapons falling into Islamic hands to where there is little difference."

sagunto,I disagree. Muslims know the difference between a jihadi and a mufsidun, there is no mistaking the meaning, and the traditional favorable light jihad has been given in islam, is removed from the equation entirely.To say that using the correct terminology to describe the true evil-doers is being PC seems to indicate a rigidity that is not useful in combating the irreconcilable wing of islam. Islam is by it's very nature a political cult, but many of it's adherents are good intentioned people that do not understand that, and are forbidden from examining it critically.As for someone mentioning the Reformation of Islam, there are those pushing for just that, even though to even say it, is a death penalty.To put it another way, you have never seen me use the word jihad to describe the mufsidun, and you never will. I have had many discussions with numerous people I know who are from the ME, some still are muslim, but most are atheist, and a small few are now Christian. All of them, including the practicing muslims hate the mufsidun with a passion.Adapt and overcome.

So that means by implication that Charles is approving of Lega Nord, a party that is everything that Vlaams Belang is and more, and that he is approving of the party of the mayor with the Celtic Cross. Charles Johnson actually has no problem with a government with VB-style politicians, Celtic Crosses and crypto-fascists. He thinks it's A-OK and links approvingly to an article describing it as pro-American and pro-business and in opposition to the anti-American socialists. I guess Charles Johnson is just another crypto-fascist after all. He's just too much of a coward to come out of the closet.

I think we need to engage Oyvind Strommen here, so that he can straighten out Charles Johnson on this. It's clear that Charles is ripe for some good ol' inquisition. And I'm sure Charles will be grateful and enjoy being corrected and getting another gloria around his neck.

Henrik R Clausen: Respectfully, I disagree. I suggest to read up on the Balkans, and the tremendous American / EU goofs down there, to understand just how much we have done to further Islamic terrorism, including 9/11, through our Balkan policies.

While the Balkans may well be a veritable pisspot that America has helped to brew up, in no way does it represent the prime mover pushing superpowers back to a Cold War posture. Russia and China’s perpetual triangulation against American efforts contribute far more to the problem. Europe also bears some responsibility as well for supporting Hamas, the Palestinian terrorists and the EU’s business dealings in the MME (Muslim Middle East).

Would America’s missile shield be such a vital issue if Iran weren’t scurrying after nuclear arms? China’s massive military buildup is also to blame. Finally, in a very odd sense, Russia’s decrepit overall military condition makes them just that much more likely to fall back on nuclear weapons. Considering that Iran is amply supplied by Russia and China makes them complicit in this new need for higher defense capabilities. Russia and China have abetted North Korea’s proliferation and China bears most of the blame in the case of Pakistan. America cannot be faulted if it is obliged to offset these dangers.

We need to focus on the bad actions, not on who does them. It's better to be against shady Russian nuclear deals than being against Russia as such.

Russia’s people have voted in the bad actors who are committing these wrongdoings. While I’m certainly not out to start a war with Russia, neither should they be let off of the hook by some semantics over Russians and Russian deals.

ole: So, should we try to learn from their bag-of-dirty-tricks , or would that be letting them "dictate the terms"?

I’d prefer to think that giving Islam a dose of its own salts would be more a case of us dictating terms by subjecting Muslims to their own methods. It’s not so much “stooping to conquer” as turning the tables.

Much has been said about the danger of turning into the enmy that you fight ; but this has never actualy happened.Sadly ,I am afraid we will have to learn to play as dirty as the ENEMY does, and then some.

Absolutely. We won WWII and did not become Nazis in the process. So shall we win the war against Islam and not become terrorists.

Conservative Swede: Even if we'd give our worst, we wouldn't become anything even close to them.

At day’s end, this is the bottom line. Islam is so far beyond redemption that our failure to crush it would be far worse a thing than showing it any (undeserved) mercy.

Regarding Islam dictating terms, I invite everyone to please read no2liberals’s linked article, “Loosely Interpreted Arabic Terms Can Promote Enemy Ideology”. The essay deals with how important it is to use Islamically correct terminology in identifying Muslim terrorists. I am in complete disagreement with their ideas.

From the article: A case in point is the term "jihadist." Many leaders use the term jihadist or jihadi as a synonym for Islamic extremist. Jihad has been commonly adapted in English as meaning "holy war." But to Muslims it means much more. In their article, Steusand and Tunnell said in Arabic - the language of the Koran - jihad "literally means striving and generally occurs as part of the expression 'jihad fi sabil illah,' striving in the path of God."

The only problem being that Islamic jihad is nothing other than war against the Infidels and all other definitions are more recently invented forms of kitman to deceive non-believers.

This is a good thing for all Muslims. "Calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad thus indicates that we recognize their doctrines and actions as being in the path of God and, for Muslims, legitimate," they wrote. By countering jihadis, the West and moderate Muslims are enemies of true Islam.

The men asked Muslim scholars what the correct term for Islamic extremists would be and they came up with "hirabah." This word specifically refers to those engaged in sinful warfare, warfare contrary to Islamic law. "We should describe the Islamic totalitarian movement as the global hirabah, not the global jihad," they wrote.

Again, more horseradish. What all this semantic hand waving represents is an attempt to legitimize or sanitize Islam. No such thing is possible, as Islam has absolutely no redeeming features. To dispute about terminology is to posit that there is a worthy aspect to Islam that must not be confused with its less worthy side. This is not the case. Islam—at its very core and in its purest form—is still totally evil. No matter how thin you slice it, it’s still garbage. There is no clean end by which to pick up this turd.

The above paper also links to another piece titled, “Choosing Words Carefully: Language to Help Fight Islamic Terrorism” (pdf). While there may be some argument as to whether or not this is a facet of Politically Correct speech, there can be no doubt that this reeks of Multiculturalism. Trying to segregate violent Islam from Islam is a gross form of moral relativism. ALL of Islam is violent and the violence is inextricable from Koranic doctrine. To remove compulsion from Islam would render it alien and non-functional.

From the article: We begin with the word jihad, which literally means striving and generally occurs as part of the expression jihad fi sabil illah, striving in the path of God. Striving in the path of God is a duty of all Muslims. Calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad thus indicates that we recognize their doctrines and actions as being in the path of God and, for Muslims, legitimate.

The problem being that violent jihad is exactly as the Koran prescribes it and is therefore the path of Islam’s god. Furthermore, these authors attempt the same sort of sanitizing as seen in the above article:

Caliphate (khlilafa): This term literally means successor and came to refer to the successors of the Prophet Muhammad as the political leaders of the Muslim community. Sunni Muslims traditionally regard the era of the first four caliphs (632-661) as an era of just rule. Accepting our enemies’ description of their goal as the restoration of a historical caliphate again validates an aspect of their ideology. Al-Qa`ida’s caliphate would not mean the re-establishment of any historical regime; it would be a global totalitarian state. Anyone who needs a preview of how such a state would act merely has to review the conduct of the Taliban in Afghanistan before September 11, 2001.

There is wholly insufficient difference between the Taliban’s viciously puritanical regime in Afghanistan and the brutal enforcement of shari’a law seen in Saudi Arabia. Greater or lesser degrees of application do nothing to ameliorate the simple fact that shari’a law in any form is a wholesale violation of human rights amounting to nothing less than an ongoing crime against humanity. Again, there is no clean end by which to pick up this turd.

I’m going to submit these links to the Baron with a request that this one be put up for discussion here at GoV. Politically Correct speech or not, it still smacks of Multiculturalism and its abhorrent relativistic thinking. I’ll have none of it.

eatyourbeans: Whether Russia would help, and what her price might be, and whether it would be worth paying are good questions.

Russia would be all too glad to help a besieged Europe. Her price would be predictably extortionate and never worth paying at any cost. That was my entire point. Ask yourself why so many ex-Iron Curtain satellites are unwilling to even ask Russia the time of day. The same goes for China. You don’t see people lining up to bed down with either of them. If Russia is so Christian, why is Islamic Iran having anything to do with this infidel regime? These are bedfellows of realpolitik necessity and the ends being served are all of the very darkest sort.

Zenster,While it may seem to be sanitized, and an example of multiculturalism, I have discussed this with many people, including one friend who has just returned from Iraq, and has spent the past five years as an interpreter for our military.Thinking in terms of victory only, the first step is to isolate those mufsidun from the muslims who are not. Remove their safe havens, get the civilian populace to turn on them. This very thing began to happen in Anbar, after many commanders, but especially the Chaplains, began to use these terms in identifying the enemy, both AQ and the Shiia militias.By getting the muslim umma to divide itself from the most murderous element, it is a form of wedge-driving.If we are to ever have a chance of overcoming islam, and it's radicalized spread, we have to begin a dialogue with muslims who will listen.I was never part of the "nuke'em all" crowd at LGF, and am more realistic. Islam as an entity will never go away, but it can be turned back from it's violent proclivities. We defeated Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party, but there are still Nazis and Neo-Nazis today, but they have been marginalized, the same with other groups as well.One of my friends, a former muslim, now a Christian, has stated emphatically, that he believes no muslims should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. I can't accept that as a proper course, because if we become something other than that which we are, we have lost.We cannot destroy all of islam, it's unrealistic to even consider it, but we can certainly get into it's head, and cut away those pieces that are the biggest problem.

An example of what we are up against, and why we need to try new approaches.In Saudi Arabia, moderate article on Islam draws death fatwa."The controversial fatwa and the swift condemnation it drew from Saudi and other Arab intellectuals offer a look into the shifting balance between extremist and moderate versions of Islam in Saudi society today. It is a delicate balance that, for the time being, appears to be tipping ever so slightly towards the moderates."

no2liberals: Thinking in terms of victory only, the first step is to isolate those mufsidun from the muslims who are not. Remove their safe havens, get the civilian populace to turn on them. This very thing began to happen in Anbar, after many commanders, but especially the Chaplains, began to use these terms in identifying the enemy, both AQ and the Shiia militias.

Since you try to speak with some authority on this, please indicate just how long you think those Muslims in Anbar would continue to remain pro-American—or even just not anti-American-once multinational forces departed Iraq. The simple fact that—being newly liberated—Afghanistan and Iraq both implemented shari’a law shows that Muslims refuse to throw off Islam’s yoke. I strongly doubt that you’re going to tell me that Muslims can live under shari’a law and totally refrain from terrorism or other human rights violations.

So there we have it. Islam—when practiced in its basic form—is a self-perpetuating tyranny that holds little promise of evolution.

By getting the muslim umma to divide itself from the most murderous element, it is a form of wedge-driving. If we are to ever have a chance of overcoming islam, and it's radicalized spread, we have to begin a dialogue with muslims who will listen.

The Muslim ummah has had nearly SEVEN LONG YEARS to “divide itself from the most murderous element” and has done nothing of the sort. The 9-11 atrocity was sufficiently evil whereby anyone with a scintilla of morality knows that such a thing is well beyond the pale. Instead, Muslims cheered and continue to celebrate the hijackers as “The Magnificent 19”. The only reason Anbar’s Muslims “listened” was because their sole other alternative was DEATH. That does not represent them listening to the voice of reason, it shows them to be opportunistic. Even more importantly, how can you be sure that any erstwhile cooperation isn’t just a form of taqiyya?

If you haven’t already, I suggest that you watch the short video, "Relentless". Bearing in mind the well-documented historical record obtained from Israel’s dealings with their Palestinian foes, please tell me why the West should expect anything different from Islam. From all indications, the only way Israel has gotten Gaza’s undivided attention is by shutting down all power and fuel deliveries into the region. “Relentless" is nothing but a loathsome catalogue of incessant Muslim taqiyya.

I was never part of the "nuke'em all" crowd at LGF, and am more realistic.

While I do not support first-use of nuclear weapons against Islam, neither do I think that the MME (Muslim Middle East) is long for this world. The towering ingratitude that Islam exhibits to the West—even as it is totally dependent upon our largesse for its very survival—simply defies comprehension. Islam’s perfidy and treachery knows no bounds and literally assures its own future devastation.

Islam as an entity will never go away, but it can be turned back from it's violent proclivities.

I disagree on both counts. Other pervasive cultures no longer exist. Where are the Pharonic Egyptians, the Mayans, the Aztecs, the Incas? Islam’s current popularity is no guarantee of its continuing existence. Especially as it continues to antagonize those whom it cannot live without. I refer specifically to the MME’s complete and total dependence upon wheat grown in the West.

We defeated Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party, but there are still Nazis and Neo-Nazis today, but they have been marginalized, the same with other groups as well.

While Islam bears many similarities to Nazism, there are some key differences. A world conquered by Nazis would still appear much the same as it does today. A world ruled by Islam’s global caliphate would bear little resemblance to what we now know as civilization. I’ve already documented how we could expect ONE QUARTER of the globe’s population to perish in such an event. The wholesale destruction of Western culture's architectural, literary and artistic legacy would leave earth’s surviving population in a typically Islamic wasteland, only now of global proportions.

Between Islam’s pseudo-religious trappings, embrace of terrorism and self-sanctioned lying, it becomes far more dangerous than Nazism and must be treated as such.

One of my friends, a former muslim, now a Christian, has stated emphatically, that he believes no muslims should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S.

"The legitimate question is this: Since the security services cannot sort out the good immigrant from the bad terrorist... why don't these countries deport all Muslims, of all races, from Europe and America, and [thus] find rest from the danger of terrorism, and protect their peoples?

"I, as an Arab Muslim immigrant, sincerely call on the countries of Europe and America to deport all Muslims from their territories - including myself, despite my love and my sincere attachment to the U.S..."

A complete halt to all immigration from Muslim majority countries would easily be the kindest thing that could happen right now. Far worse is waiting in the wings and Muslims everywhere are doing absolutely nothing to forestall it.

We have ZERO obligation to help Islam clean its own house. There is no reason on this green earth that we should spend another thin dime on persuading Muslims away from their terrorist co-religionists. Either they find the moral fortitude to foreswear something so patently evil as terrorism and shari’a law or they find themselves at military odds with the West.

If the West has any moral obligation towards Muslims, it is to liberate them from Islam’s spiritual stranglehold. Islam is nothing but a gulag mentality and needs to go the way of all outmoded cultures. Islam and shari’a law are crimes against humanity and have no redeeming features. The sooner this world is rid of them the better off all of us are.

I can't accept that as a proper course, because if we become something other than that which we are, we have lost.

America was not lost when we cut off all Japanese and German immigration during WWII. Neither will we lose our national identity if we temporarily halt all Muslim immigration until Islam is sorted out. Our constitution and cultural values are not a suicide pact. For those values to have any meaning, we must cherish them enough whereby we do not allow them to be perverted by our enemies until they no longer hold true. That is what Muslims want in America and until their desire for shari’a law to rule in this country is a historical artifact, we have every right to ban Islam and eradicate all traces of it.

The only “new approaches” we need to try involve making Islam shoulder the burden of identifying and executing their jihadists. Until then, there needs to be Hell to pay until Muslims find sufficient motivation to survive.

That's very important to me - sorry 'bout it. Point is, Russians aren't evil. They just happen to have done some evil things, like selling stuff to Iran and that. It makes a world of a difference not to hate Russians, but perhaps to read Anna Politikovskaia and figure out what the *heck* is going on over there.

I appreciate you grandstanding, I would like that we had the economical power and political clout to benefit from that. I still think going a tour through Russia and talking to ordinary people there might be good.

And I stand firm in my assessment that helping Islamic influence in the Balkans, at the expense of Russian, is a Bad Thing. The US government (administration) doesn't _get_ this, interprets the quite reasonable Russian reaction as a return to 'Cold War attitudes', and itself reacts in kind.

When the US economy truely collapses, the government will be forced to change its ways.

On the issue of terms (as in 'phrases'), we're having quite a bit of luck adopting those from our enemies and their allies. Like 'Cultural enrichment', which we use to tease all those halal-hippies every time some poor 'misunderstander of Islam' does something stupid.

It's pretty cool, for the halal-hippies get to look stupid, unable to mount any meaningful reply.

Henrick R Clausen: I stand firm in my assessment that helping Islamic influence in the Balkans, at the expense of Russian, is a Bad Thing. The US government (administration) doesn't _get_ this, interprets the quite reasonable Russian reaction as a return to 'Cold War attitudes', and itself reacts in kind.

I do not dispute America's incredible blunder in that neck of the woods. What I do dispute is that such a middling issue is responsible for the entire shift back to a Cold War posture.

America was rather concilliatory towards Russia some time ago and has been rewarded with the usual triangulation. If none of the typical Russian back-stabbing had occurred, I'd wager that the current political landscape would be quite different.

The disregard for Post-Soviet Russia started with Clinton administration's State Department.

We shouldn't forget that the media was a major catalyst with their constant moralizing about the genocide of Muslims.

The One-Worlders in Clinton's admin probably had no conception of the historical "sphere-of-influence" claims and affinities of Russia, or if aware of the past, they were probably dismissive that it had any meaning to the world today.

These same people are probably still in the State Department due to the failure of Bush to clean house. And so their policy continues , and Rice , the alledged Russia expert, has shown how foolish and stupid this woman is.

Zenster,Perhaps this evening I'll have an opportunity to respond at length, but for now, before I hit the shower, I will say any opportunity for helping pull muslims in the direction of modernity, and away from the violent tenets of islam, is an opportunity that should be taken.If fighting and dying is required, so be it, but surely that isn't the only way to break through centuries of ignorance.And not all muslims celebrated the 9-11 murders, or praised the mufsidun that carried out the attack.

Zenster: Russia would be all too glad to help a besieged Europe. Her price would be predictably extortionate and never worth paying at any cost.

Remember the terms of the debate. We're not talking about Europe as it is today, but ex hyp, a "Balkanized" Europe-- a patchwork of warring tribes, some European, some moslem. In other words, a new Dark Ages.

You say you would prefer this to a Russian peace?

This thread is probably nearing its end, but I hope we'll return to the subject of Russia in the future.

"Not all Muslims celebrated the 9-11 murders"Oh my, what kind of reasoning is that? PC-speak posing as "adaptation".

I don't need to travel through the Middle East to come to grips with Muslim thought. We have plenty of Muslims over here in Amsterdam and I've tried to work with these people for years now. The "moderates" who'll fully agree with the re-labeling game suggested by no2lib, will be the same ones that will continue to establish the rule of Islam by more peaceful means, while misguided politicians and their advisors call for, largely ineffective, measures against the small and violent avant garde.

On a wider note -concerning the Islamicly Correct vocabulary- I'd like to point out that all of this semantic strategizing amounts to very little in the fight against the creeping Islamization of our cities. It's hybris, nothing else (well perhaps "progressive" arrogance), to think that outsiders can somehow produce a "moderate Islam". The pipedream of politicians.

Violent jihad will always be the weapon of choice by a minority. Others favour the more gradual approach to advance Islam and bring it to domination. This supposedly adaptive "War of the Words" -suggested in the links provided by no2liberals, thnx for that no2lib- is but a byproduct of the unfortunate and overambitious (traditionally lefist, i.e. "progressive") choice to "bring democracy" to societies that -because of Islam- have no need for the Western rule of law. That's a pitty, but a harsh reality. Someone like Pres. John Quincy Adams knew that all too well.

Armies won't do the trick: this is not a case of -like in 1683- Islamic government armies marching for jihad (as prescribed by orthodox Islamic jurisprudence). Since 9/11 we know that jihad is not conducted by Islamic governments, but through private enterprise by Bin Laden Corp. and the likes. Of course, governments that think that waging jihad upon the West is actually a good idea, will do everything to hide their possible involvement in supporting jihadists.

It must be said though that for the ones loving big ambitious international schemes and plans, there might be other ways to fight Islam. The most important i.m.o. would be its weakest point by far: economics. I don't like Clinton but to counter all recycled cold-war sloganry it cannot be repeated enough: "it's their economy, dummy" ;-)

eatyourbeans: Remember the terms of the debate. We're not talking about Europe as it is today, but ex hyp, a "Balkanized" Europe-- a patchwork of warring tribes, some European, some moslem. In other words, a new Dark Ages.

You say you would prefer this to a Russian peace?

Nowhere have I said any such thing. I would much rather see and actively support American intervention at that point. Our participation would come at a price too: The permanent abandonment of socialism throughout Europe.

I’ll put it another way. If Russia is coming uphill so nicely, why isn’t anyone emigrating there? Russians, Europeans, Muslims, Chinese and everybody else on earth still want to come to America. Nobody to speak of is emigrating to Russia, China or the MME (Muslim Middle East). I think that sums my point up rather nicely.

I hope we'll return to the subject of Russia in the future.

I could not agree with you more. This whole issue of Russia as Europe’s “friend” is more than a little disturbing. It would be like inviting an ill-mannered elephant into the henhouse.

Sagunto: The "moderates" who'll fully agree with the re-labeling game suggested by no2lib, will be the same ones that will continue to establish the rule of Islam by more peaceful means, while misguided politicians and their advisors call for, largely ineffective, measures against the small and violent avant garde.

One more time, while there may be “moderate” Muslims—in reality they are MINO (Muslims In Name Only)— there is no moderate Islam. Please try to keep this one essential fact in mind.

On a wider note -concerning the Islamicly Correct vocabulary- I'd like to point out that all of this semantic strategizing amounts to very little in the fight against the creeping Islamization of our cities. It's hubris, nothing else (well perhaps "progressive" arrogance), to think that outsiders can somehow produce a "moderate Islam". The pipedream of politicians.

Very well said! This is why I keep agitating for the application of sufficient military pressure whereby Islam is finally persuaded to clean its own house. To date, all we have done is remove the extremists, who are—in actuality—a threat to Islamic tyrannies that are already in place. In effect, we have entrenched political Islam, not dislodged it. Proof of this is that Afghanistan and Iraq—despite being newly liberated—both instantly re-adopted shari’a law.

It must be said though that for the ones loving big ambitious international schemes and plans, there might be other ways to fight Islam. The most important i.m.o. would be its weakest point by far: economics.

Barring military intervention—which cannot be done away with completely—this will all come down to water and wheat. It will be hilarious to watch the liberal Left agonize over whether using nuclear weapons or starving people to death is more Politically Correct.

Henrik R Clausen: Oh, this is true, relevant and important:

Only Good Muslims celebrated the killing. There's an inverse correlation here, between being a good Muslim and a good human.

Thus treading perilously close to: “The only Good Muslim is a …”

That is a mindset I refuse to validate in any form.

Which is a good reason for those bad Muslims to become Christians, rather than trying to become good Muslims.

Bearing in mind how conversion must be voluntary, won’t Islamic taqiyya facilitate the infiltration of Christian ranks by Muslim interlopers? This whole fantasy of conversion still requires imposing a Qur'antine (pun intended) upon the entire MME and letting it demonstrate its Christian piety for a few centuries before accepting them back into the civilized world.

No way in Hell should wholesale Muslim conversions be taken seriously right away. It is a recipe for disaster. Please remember it is not my fault that Muslims have betrayed mankind by adopting taqiyya. My response—no matter how harsh it seems—represents a logical extension of having to deal with those who religiously sanction deceit and treachery. Islam has given itself absolute ethical and moral carte blanche. The proper penalties for such monstrous self-absolution can only be extreme. Never again in human history should such monumental perfidy be allowed to go unchecked.

Now here's someone who really understands what is needed and what's more: the level that is most crucial, which is the local, traditional level.I have had more than enough of all this supremely abstract blablahoela about "strategic coalitions with Russia" and likewise theorizing. It's utter grandiose nonsense i.m.o.

On the third hand, don't feel like the Lone Ranger. As I mentioned over on the fatal thread, I was killed by PJM, at the behest of Amy Alkon, because I spoke honestly about her hypocrisy vis-a-vis a topical thread by her titled "Crushed into Silence".

I don't know what it is that has happened to PJM over the time from their inception—where freedom of cogent speech was their credo—to now; where they 'kill' at the pleasure of Roger Simon [or whoever is yanking his chain]. Maybe corporate life is like that at PJM. I've seen it like that elsewhere. [Note: It's one of the reasons I left 'corporate life'; i.e., Carlyle Group, after it bought and 'raped' DexMedia, or at least its employees. Then they sold the carcass to the highest bidder.]

The point here is that there's something rotten in the state of PJM. [Note: That's my Danish speaking.] Their current comportment reminds me of Robespierre during the Reign of Terror; you say something they don't like....true as it may be....and they'll 'kill' you.

If I applied my intell training, I'd say there was something that needed additional information. My gut feeling is that there is more to this than meets the regular eye.

It could be mere political correctness, as it begins to infect what used to be 'freedom of speech' venues. Then again, it might be something else. Whatever it is, more information is necessary.

Does anyone have an honest 'friend' in that organization? Someone privy to what Roger is thinking? Someone who loves the Constitution of the United States? I mean REALLY loves it?

Regards,

Chuck(le)[The real freedoms are to worship, to think, to speak, to choose to be ambitious, to be independent, to be industrious, to acquire skill, to seek reward. These are the real freedoms, for these are the essence of the nature of man. - Sir Robert Menzies]

Sagunto and zenster,Believe as you wish, as will I.I haven't seen any cogent ideas on how to deal with islam, with the lone exception of Geert Wilders, who if you have seen Fitna, says much the same thing, that muslims need to rip out the 109 pages of the koran that promote violence.How do you propose to do that with an excess of words, if the intended audience doesn't listen to you?As a U.S. observer of what is happening in Europe, it is clear to me what must be done there, go to church, have babies, jealously guard your rights, and use the hate crime laws on the radical imams. Every nation has it's challenges, but islam is far more advanced in it's creep in Europe, than ours, and represents a much higher percentage of the population, than here. Europe is a cautionary tale for us.People can claim they see PC or multiculti hiding behind every tree, but action is more valuable than words, and the fact is, those two terms, mufsidun and global hirabah have been used to good effect in communicating just who we are fighting. I would first like to see the killing stopped...all of it, the innocent people in pizza parlors, office buildings, at weddings, and on the battle field. If the mufsidun can be defeated and marginalized, it would be a good first step. The political problems with islam will be around long after we are gone. Rather than wring hands, and have endless discussions about what it all means, I'd prefer to see action, and when there is a measure of success, pursue it even further.Droning on with the same discussions about islam, and doing nothing is tedious.

@ Sagunto - I just finished reading the article "How Localism Might Save the Continent" and am in complete agreement. I have been giving a lot of thought lately to the size of government and its closeness to the governed and am more convinced than ever that to preserve our Western culture, our national cultures, that we need to dismember or neuter all superstates and push power back down to as local a level as necessary to accomplish a required public function. The further the rulers are from the ruled increases their indifference to us geometrically and maybe even exponentially. Why for example would an EU bureaucrat in Brussels care about the impact of massive Muslim immigration into a small village in Italy or Spain or Poland? They wouldn't but the local mayor or county administrator would. We have the same problem here in the US. The incredible distance from Mexico to Maine for example makes the impact of massive illegal immigration into the US a faraway problem for residents of Maine so the residents of Maine don't pressure their federal legislators to address it. Thus massive problems in one part of the country don't achieve the national criticality required for proper and timely resolution. Our elected representatives are insulated from events because they are isolated from their effects. We have had great success by individual states in addressing illegal immigration with very tough laws precisely because the elected officials are closer to the people they represent. It is no mystery why here in the US the Democrats prefer the Federal government to state and local government. They take advantage of the dislocations caused by the consolidation of power at the federal level. If we want to defeat the Left we need to fight for local power.

From the Localisation Article: The spirit of Old Lorraine has survived for 1,200 years. “Populist” parties in Flanders, Switzerland, Lombardia, Cologne and Alsace and other regions along the spine of Europe are popular for the simple reason that they are not prepared to let twelve centuries of capitalist self-reliance, self-governance and limited government fade away simply because foreigners are moving in with a spirit adapted to Arabian desert life.

Contrast the foregoing previous paragraph with that which follows:

“It is the wrong way to fight the global jihad,” writes the American anti-Islamist. “To form one group for indigenous Europeans, as has been done in several countries, reduces virtually every issue to the one non-negotiable issue of race and ethnicity, discourages cooperation, and thus encourages Balkanization, works against the idea of representative government, and obscures the common values of Judeo-Christian civilization that are shared by people of many races and ethnicities.”

In this case, I must express suspicion at so ready and strident a cry of "racism!". The first paragraph makes amply clear the traditions and culture that those indigenous Europeans seek to preserve. Furthermore, Islamic culture is so totally contrary to all aspects of those anciemt European traditions that there simply is no possibility of coexistence. Especially so, considering how typically domineering Muslims are.

While there are many worthy aspects to the concept of Localisation, I remain concerned that such fragmentation will result in diminutive enclaves with insufficient resources to fight those who have no compunction regarding the use of ultra-violence and terrorism in general. The well-defended traditions of Europe's Middle Kingdom may not embrace the sufficiently aggressive motivation required to repulse colonizing Muslims in the same way a larger military might.

As a caveat, I'm obliged to add how so much doubt remains regarding the probability of European military intervention against its Muslim colonizers, that the protectionist legislation and overall militancy of Localisation certainly serves as an admirable first layer of cultural defense. My only concern is whether it will prove adequate to so challenging a task.

no2liberals: those two terms, mufsidun and global hirabah have been used to good effect in communicating just who we are fighting.

I maintain that using such narrow terms as “mufsidun” and “global hirabah”, only caters to Islam’s ends. It does not serve the greater awareness of this world’s population regarding the Islamic threat. Quibbling over Islamically Correct terminology in order to appease perpetually offended Muslim sensibilities does little to thwart the rising tide of fast or slow jihad.

Face it—for almost the last decade—our world has been attuned to the term “jihad”. Be it jihadi terrorists, fast militant jihad or slow demographic jihad, the term is now firmly in place. What’s more, the term jihad is not inaccurate. For the vast majority of Islam’s history, “jihad” has meant one thing—and one thing only—CONVERSION OF DAR AL HARB TO ISLAM THROUGH THE USE OF VIOLENT FORCE. Any implications of a spiritual struggle towards purity and such ameliorative twaddle are the direct result of kitman (i.e., the intentional omission of truth in order to mislead) that originated within the last two centuries. Prior to that, jihad has always referred to the violent imposition of Islam.

What’s more, claiming that the improper use of terms like “jihad” only serves to confer moral authority upon terrorists ignores the fact that Koranic doctrine already sanctifies using violence to spread Islam. Using such terms as “mufsidun” and “hirabah” intrinsically implies that there is a “moderate” side to Islam that opposes conversion by force and the use of violence against innocents. This is dangerously misleading when the Koran specifically absolves these vicious acts. The simple fact remains that there is no moderate Islam.

I'd prefer to see action, and when there is a measure of success, pursue it even further.

no2liberals, you cite the Anbar Awakening as an example where this narrowing of terminology has brought a measure of success against terrorism. You have not responded regarding my own inquiry as to whether—once Multinational Forces depart Iraq—the Anbar Muslims will remain pro-American or, at least, not become anti-American.

I regard the Koran as far too polarizing such that—absent any coercive force—Muslims will always revert to anti-Western sentiments no matter how much kindness or liberation we bring to them. Nowhere throughout the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) are there any examples of nations that willingly maintain strong and positive ties with America despite decades of foreign aid and military or technological assistance. I’ll ask that you please address this concern.

[quote: zen]"..While there are many worthy aspects to the concept of Localisation, I remain concerned that such fragmentation will result in diminutive enclaves with insufficient resources to fight those who have no compunction regarding the use of ultra-violence and terrorism in general. The well-defended traditions of Europe's Middle Kingdom may not embrace the sufficiently aggressive motivation required to repulse colonizing Muslims in the same way a larger military might.."

Fragmentation? That's the perspective of someone who thinks some sort of "unity" is broken. There never was unity. But that's precisely the point that you seem unable to grasp: the historically very positive aspect of the lack of unity (i.e. centralization).

The actual fight against Islamization is not against quasi-armies that posess resources to engage in ultra-violence (like the reference to the Orange Clockwork though ;-).Two things to reconsider:- It is not about the traditions of the Middle Earth of Lotharingen. The point is about the blissful lack of centralized government for a prolonged period of time that left behind a spirit of self-government in all these very different "fragments" of lands. This spirit will be the main force inspiring resistance. Having a truckload of weapons will not help anyone who doesn't know what he's fighting for.- The whole gist of Belien's article is not about some concept of locatization, it's about surviving living traditions and enduring regional loyalty.

The article obviously is not concerned with fighting strategies et cetera, and that's exactly why I thought it to be a breath of fresh air amidst all the somewhat abstract military talk, still glaringly oblivious to the fact that the fight against Islamization will be more like a civil war between ordinary people in city neighbourhoods instead of some military campaign by a government.

Sagunto: The article obviously is not concerned with fighting strategies et cetera, and that's exactly why I thought it to be a breath of fresh air amidst all the somewhat abstract military talk, still glaringly oblivious to the fact that the fight against Islamization will be more like a civil war between ordinary people in city neighbourhoods instead of some military campaign by a government.

Friend, I think that you mistake my words. My use of the term "fragmented" referred only to how these various Lotharingen entities are now artificially congregated under the larger umbrellas of larger European nations. This is in no way meant to denigrate the admirable qualities of decentralization that they embody. Given the EU's antagonistic attitude towards indigenous Europeans, decentralization—as Charlemagne noted, as well—confers some distinct advantages.

What's more, if you review my last comment's own final caveat I, too, retain some serious doubts about whether the various EU militaries will even come to the aid of Europe's own indigenous civilian population. At that point decentralization or Localisation most definitely confers significant advantages.

In closing, I'll ask that you note how nowhere do I condemn Localisation but only express concern that it may not be up to the task. This is not to downplay its importance but only to wish for the European Middle Kingdom's survival. Speaking as someone who is a devout capitalist and half European as well, it is gratifying beyond words to know that capitalism first took root in such productive and independent-minded regions. It only adds to my conviction that the entire Muslim world can perish before I will see it mutilate these precious bastions of Western civilization's heritage.

Zenster,If I haven't been clear, my bad. I don't care what anyone else wants to call the militant, irreconcilable wing of islam, and seeing others use the term jihad is acceptable. I don't use it very much, because most people I know are already very familiar with the violence inherent in the koran. I promote using the terms mufsidun and global hirabah, to inform others, and to address those many muslims who do not support the mufsidun.What you are saying is nothing new, I've been hearing the same rhetoric on the innernut, ad nauseum, for the past seven years, and it does nothing. At least those in the National Defense University not only brain stormed, listened to many others, came to a conclusion, and took action. The incessant comments about how bad islam is, and it must be stopped, is an exercise in futility, unless something useful in the "meat" world comes of it.Islam will continue to exist as long as there are followers of it, and that it has been around for about fourteen hundred years, and has about 1.2billion adherents, tells me it isn't going away any time soon, if at all. Before it has time to fail, we need to be addressing the most maladaptive, and murderous element, and if that means using terminology that muslims understand, without the traditionally positive connotations of jihad associated with it, then I will use and encourage those terms.I tend to be more practical in my outlook on life. Continuing to ring the alarm bell, but never actually fighting the fire is absurd, to me.As for hypotheticals, such as the one you posed on Anbar, they don't interest me. I prefer empirical results, based on performance, good or bad. Discussing St. Anselm's Proslogion is more interesting to me, than hypothetical questions.

I noticed that sagundo and henrik wanted to disparage my comment, that not all muslims celebrated 9-11, as being PC. Perhaps they should expand their knowledge on what is going on in Iran. There are photos available, at a number of sources(find the links yourselves), that show Iranian citizens holding candlelight vigils, in Iran, to honor and mourn the lives that were lost that day. And yes, there are good muslims, I know a number of them, it's the koran and imams that are the problem. I also have Jewish friends, who are friends with many of the same muslims I know. While they are good people, we do view their religion/cult with disdain.

Arguing over the fact that different terminology is, and has been used, other than jihad, is very illustrative of how rigid some have become. Use the terms you want, even continue to believe your term is the most descriptive, it really doesn't matter to me, as I will continue to use the terms I prefer. Just please save the endless lines of lecture about islam and the koran. I'm well versed.

I stand corrected ;-)Thnx for the exchange, I hold your comments in high esteem and of course I second your Ps nomination.

To your caveat I can add my conviction, based on current observations, that the power of the State will be used against the rebelling indigenous civilians. That has already been the case in some serious riots last year in the city of Utrecht, when an entire police force turned against a neighbourhood that for years on end had been terrorized by Muslim "chance youths" (as the PC parlance goes). A local that had enough of Muslim youths harassing his daughter had a fall out with them and was later shot dead by a police officer when he wanted to complain. Then riots broke out; the entire police force against the neighbourhood that in no time was completely and literally fenced off. On a bigger scale, that will be the probable scenario.